creative control

[Jayson]

Subject: creative control

Again, I've claimed that you are mistaken to think that what happened is a bad thing. I'm not denying that you think it was a bad thing---I'm just giving you a reason to think you're mistaken. Nothing is taken away from your posts in the thread where all mine are deleted.

OK...and...
Again, we've claimed that you are mistaken to think that what happened is a good thing. We're not denying that you think it was a good thing. We've just giving you reasons to think you're mistaken. Quite a bit was taken away from the discussion in the thread where all your posts were deleted.


Again, where you see inconsequential (without evidence), we see consequential (with evidence).
This is not resolvable.
ILP Staff will not agree with you on the value of impact.

Once again.
Now that it is perfectly clear that ILP will not be changing its policy at all on this matter:

What else can we do for you?

Jayson,

I just gave Only_Humean a reason to think that his finger doesn't really break, when he puts it in a glass of water. Or, to think that his perception of someone deleting their posts as a bad thing, isn't actually a bad thing.

You've just restated that your finger is broken.

Here's what I'd like from you, if you'd be so kind as to oblige me...

1. I already know that you are decided that the policy won't change. You do not need to keep restating that. If there are reasonable people among the moderators, then I'm trying to appeal to that---with reasons.

2. If you feel the need to declare that the policy won't change. You're welcome to send me a PM, so that it doesn't detract from the thread where people are actually debating the policy.

Let's recap just a moment here shall we?

1. In this thread, you have insinuated that the Religion section of ILP is a less sound section of ILP.
2. You have insulted me several times personally, to include painting my responses as either dramatic, trivial, or disturbing; pleading dismissive by ad hom regardless.
3. I have:
   
   1. Given you what the expected result of this endeavor would be all the way at the beginning; which has come to fruition.
   2. Further engaged and given you reason for the ILP Staff standing.
   3. Setup an example case just for this thread to show how the impact stands (of which the Staff disagrees with you on how consequential of an effect deletions were in the example thread, as Carleas so noted himself).
   4. Continued providing even further lengthy reasons as to why the policy is in place.

And yet, you have the audacity to say this?
To imply that my only reason for not agreeing with you is that I lack being reasonable?
And further, you wish to go ahead and insult any staff that disagrees with you (which is everyone so far) by labeling them as unreasonable as well?

So you think I've provided you with nothing?
You think I'm just here to piss on your head or something?
Alright. Here's what I have offered you.

While it's true that you are the originator of your posts, I have bad news for you. Anything posted here belongs to ILP, and the owner/adminisrator makes all decisions concerning content.

...Right on the nail head, sir. That is what we're talking about.

My suggestion---here in the Help and Suggestions Forum---is that the "bad news" (as you said) be changed to good. ---That sound right?

That sound right?

No.

It'd be better if the website didn't behave like it owns the content that you lend it.

ILP acts like it owns the content because it does.

Wake up. This is the forum for "suggestions"---I'm making a suggestion about what I think ought to be the case. I already know what is the case.

In your first response you simply said "No". That was a not helpful piece of reasoning. It wasn't a reason at all. That kind of thing might be fine in the Religion forum----it's not, here.

Give your head a shake, partner.

I don't bother with it because it's not a possibility.
If you want to hear the long line of reasons, then write Carleas about it.
But ILP will simply not be releasing that standard in any manner you are looking for.
I'm not here debating or waxing philosophy. I'm telling you that your "suggestion" won't happen so it's rather pointless to go on and on about it as if reasoning will suddenly change anything.

Go back to the Religion area. This is a "help" forum on a "philosophy" site----and clearly you'd prefer to do neither. I'm not trying to be rude, but answers like "...it'll never change and that's that" to my suggestion just are what's rude.

Sorry if you find it rude to tell you that the forum policy will not change on the matter, so the idea that you will get "help" is not possible.

You want a change that I once inquired on when I first arrived.
I'm telling you, take it or leave it, that waxing ideals on the matter isn't going to change that policy.
If you just feel like banging your head against a virtual wall...knock yourself out I guess.

ILP can't safely release that ownership because it then states that it doesn't own itself and thereby is not its own property.
ILP doesn't own the IP.
It owns the posts.
There is a huge difference.
ILP cannot sue me for publishing a book with ideas I also wrote here.
But the posts belong to ILP.
If they didn't, then any random hacker could cite that they did not violate ILP's property rights.

--no response--

Oh, and btw Monook: The reason that editing is limited hasn't anything to do with who owns what.
It has to do with Carleas' final decision on the matter of continuity, as you suspected at the beginning.
And while you cite quote as the function that removes this from being a problem, it doesn't.

And I can personally share that in my time as moderator, my opinion on the matter changed from more along your line of thinking to Carleas' line of thinking.
The reason is that, as a moderator, I've seen the train wreck that occurred when someone went back and placed a "[]", or "..." on all of their posts after being involved in several conversations.
Even after I was moderator, infinite editing was allowed.
After further abuses in quite a few cases, it was limited to 48 hours so that people couldn't fume out for whatever random reason from ILP and on their way out just "[]", or "..." all of their posts, or a huge chunk of them.

So while it seems like a good idea; I can say that I've seen first hand cases where the staff at ILP has continually been shown that it does not work.

--no response--

we already agree that my suggestion is an improvement

No we don't.

Oh, and btw Monook: The reason that editing is limited hasn't anything to do with who owns what.
It has to do with Carleas' final decision on the matter of continuity, as you suspected at the beginning.
And while you cite quote as the function that removes this from being a problem, it doesn't.

And I can personally share that in my time as moderator, my opinion on the matter changed from more along your line of thinking to Carleas' line of thinking.
The reason is that, as a moderator, I've seen the train wreck that occurred when someone went back and placed a "[]", or "..." on all of their posts after being involved in several conversations.
Even after I was moderator, infinite editing was allowed.
After further abuses in quite a few cases, it was limited to 48 hours so that people couldn't fume out for whatever random reason from ILP and on their way out just "[]", or "..." all of their posts, or a huge chunk of them.

So while it seems like a good idea; I can say that I've seen first hand cases where the staff at ILP has continually been shown that it does not work.

Jayson, I hate to have to repeat this, but you're not offering reasons for what you think. Pav and I already agreed that creative control was a good thing---and I'm suggesting the greater good.

I'm making a suggestion to improve the site. And your response has gone from "Don't bother, it'll never change!" to "I was in a 'train wreck' when someone deleted their posts!'" ---which is just a preposterously dramatic way of reusing the bad reason that I've already handled.

If you were involved in a "train wreck" where someone deleted their post, then that was a prerogative I think that person should have had for all the reasons I've already specified. It's not like they deleted your posts. And everybody would have known what you were responding to, because you would have quoted. (It's just a button you click, and you have to do that anyways). And calling it a "train wreck" is ridiculous---I seriously doubt that you were injured. Dust yourself off, and head on back to the Religion forum where your dramatics will be appreciated.

Simply denying that creative control is a good thing doesn't go over well with me---or anyone who has participated in this thread so far.

I didn't say that I was in a train wreck.
I stated quite clearly:

The reason is that, as a moderator, I've seen the train wreck that occurred when someone went back and placed a "[]", or "..." on all of their posts after being involved in several conversations.

Specifically, I further elaborated that:

After further abuses in quite a few cases, it was limited to 48 hours so that people couldn't fume out for whatever random reason from ILP and on their way out just "[]", or "..." all of their posts, or a huge chunk of them.

And as a result:

the staff at ILP has continually been shown that it does not work.

Which makes this claim by you:

I'm suggesting the greater good

Is really not the case.

Your ad hom's are also needless.

I've flatly laid out that the ILP staff has witnessed greater damage than good in multiple cases caused from permitting infinite editing.

You can continue to label me as a dismissal all that you would like, but your suggestion was a very long and drawn out discussion quite a while ago among the ILP staff and after seeing multiple accounts of abuse, the decision was agreed upon by the staff, and finalized by Carleas, to limit the editing time to 48 hours.

At this point, you just seem to want it your way, or will seemingly to want to claim that no one is listening.
Contrary to that claim, the ILP staff did listen.
We listened greatly, and we observed.

We actually made the decision for the greater good.
What you want is not for a greater good and I can say that with certainty because I've got a database of abuses that have ruined several threads from being legible in the past and that has nothing to do with me, as much as you seem to want it to be all about me.

---duplicate thread created in which all posts were deleted for Monooq as a case example for all to refer to---

I haven't been making a legal case. I'm not a lawyer. I'm a philosopher. This entire time I've been making something like a moral case.

So you don't know what you are asking for legally, but you would like the legal policy to change to suit your moral request?

Let's talk about a person deleting their posts---since that seems to be what you are all worried about, and the main reason for not allowing people to control their own words, after 48 hours.

How many members are on this site? .......Hundreds?
And how many topics are there? .....Thousands? And new ones being created continually, every day.

You all talk as if a person deleting their posts was a catastrophe. It's simply not true. Threads that have value are made up of individual posts that have value. If one of your posts has any value in the first place---then it would still have exactly its same value. Ideas, arguments, reasons---these stand on their own. However, if you write as if you are in a trivial phone conversation, like Jayson has in this thread, then your posts don't have any value to begin with, and so none would be lost. If you want to remember the particular idea that prompted you to write, then quote it.

...With hundreds of members and thousands of topics, being added to every day, what is even the big deal if someone really feels the need to delete their post, or even all of them!---as rare as that would be?

At this point, someone may want to regress back to the position that, "ILP owns all your shit, 48 hours after you send it". That's simply not true either. Imagine this scenario: …We're all living in a house together---the same house---and I end up painting this really great painting. Well, some time later, it's time for me to move out. Who here is going to argue that I should not be able to take my painting with me? I might even have been inspired to paint by something you did or said---it doesn't matter. Who here is arguing that I shouldn't be able to take my painting?? The way you all behave, I assume you would want to say, "Well, what about my empty wall!?!?", as you dab your eyes with a tissue. You have hundreds of people already living in the house, and with thousands of new paintings just waiting to move in---and you're all acting really strangely (to me) in insisting that a person shouldn't be able to do what they want with their painting (read: post). I'm asking you to be bigger than that, frankly.

In many ways, it's not productive to talk about a situation like this---since, if we're balancing pros and cons, we have to weigh what's likely to happen, and not what's merely possible. But since many of you seem to think that ILP will TOTALLY COLLAPSE at the very foundation if you let people just have creative control, I felt like at least addressing it.


In conclusion, I want to tell you about how I concieve of my behaviour in this thread, and my suggestion in this forum. --Moses in the Hebrew Bible came to my mind, but I think that that is an unfair comparison, to me, if only because I am not trying to get anyone to leave. I am more like the mysterious voice in Salinger's (was it Salinger's?) book about baseball and building the field… I'm saying, "If you build it, they will come". So build it.

I'm saying, "If you build it, they will come". So build it.

We're saying, "Hey Kinsella (Salinger was a character parody in Shoeless Joe of the real author of the same name), We did build it. They didn't show up. Instead, we got bookwormed books."

Essentially, if I want to read fragmented literature in a dialogue fashion, then I would just go read the Bible.
But I don't want that here. I want a good solid record of what ILP has been over the years.

ILP will always be extremely proud of any member that accomplishes creative production of their philosophy or knowledge in another medium.
We would like to let the records of the history of such a person's thoughts remain available for all to see the event of.

ILP is a museum of discussion.
The discussion is at once now, and history.

The museum of discussion you want us to build was the museum we had before.
People weren't staying at that museum for long.
We kept having a few problems at that museum, and one of them was that museum exhibits would be dismantled and removed in random fashion at the ambition of the designer of the exhibit.

We feel that version of the museum was terrible.
We promoted a few ideas and renovations to fix up the museum.

In the process we dropped quite a few longer spanned designers and attendants.
In part because we were no longer as subjectively libertarian with the governance of ILP, and in part because the new renovations produced a board-wide standard of acceptance in quality, morality, context, and recourse.
Even though these standards are loose, they never-the-less still remove some edges of our demographic by consequence.

However, the trade off is that we generally have a more cordial body of discourse which has increased the over all body of membership through permitting a welcome arena for even the lesser refined formations of thought, by clarity of consequence for ridiculing individuals themselves and belittling them for not having what one might hold as a lesser-than presentation of thought.
And as a result of that, far better progressive examples of imagination have surfaced.

Though I discharged scorn recently at the repetitive topical patterns in Religion on the subject of God, I can say that for the largest part, the Religion section has enjoyed a great increase in diverse acceptance of context.
And I really enjoy that it stands as a full history without alteration from when it was discussed.

After all, that is what this site is.
And that is where we disagree with you.

To you, this site is a temporary archive of discourse: the middle history (short history being chat rooms).
We see this site as the permanent archive: the long history.

We're simply not interested in why you think a middle history version would be a better place for discourse.
We're not interested, because we already ran a middle history version, and decided that we liked the idea of a long history version instead.

Sorry if you don't want a museum approach, but that's how we like it.
If you don't like our amount of salting the meat, then by all means go to a different butchery shop.

Jayson,

Part of what is so disturbing about your own position (which is not that of the other moderators) is that you want to force a complete record of everything that other people have written, which is not yours. If an individual poster wants a complete record of his writings---then he won't delete them. Let him choose---because they're his. If you disagree with the intuition that his posts are his, then re-read my last message. If you think anything of value is potentially lost in his posts under my suggetion, then re-read my last message. Respond to my argument directly.

Sorry if you don't want a museum approach, but that's how we like it.
If you don't like our amount of salting the meat, then by all means go to a different butchery shop.

You mean, the moderators? ...A nice sample size. Are you just asking people to leave?

If you think this site is as good as it could be, right now, you're delusional. If you want quantity over quality, you're also delusional.

Nah,

You're pretty much in the same position as Jayson, as someone with a desire to control what's not theirs. So just read what I said to Jayson, and then re-read my last message.

Part of what is so disturbing about your own position (which is not that of the other moderators) is that you want to force a complete record of everything that other people have written, which is not yours.

Muahahahahaha!
Yes, my master plan to rule over you with complete dominion is now at hand! I have absolute power and ownership of your rights and property!
Bow to me for I am the Father!

Muahahahahaha!
Yes, my master plan to rule over you with complete dominion is now at hand! I have absolute power and ownership of your rights and property!
Bow to me for I am the Father!

...Isn't it strange and ridiculous that this guy wants to "preserve a complete record of everything"---when most of his posts are like this?...




Be bigger than that.

lol...

It simply boils down to this.

Your positions did not change the ILP staff's standing.
We're not going to be changing the policy.
What are you wanting to do now?
Continue to rant on endlessly without fruition?

What do you want?

What do you want?

A good reason.

We gave them.
You don't think they are good reasons.
We do.

Now what do you want?

Jayson, tentative, and Nah...

Either address my suggestion, or just don't post.

Nah: You keep saying "ILP owns what you write" ---read below the points in bold.
tentative: Just calling me "obtuse" is trolling. Why even bother writing here?
Jayson: Every time you begin to give reasons, you simply revert back to declaring "No", (as you did initially), whenever I respond to them.

Let's talk about a person deleting their posts---since that seems to be what you are all worried about, and the main reason for not allowing people to control their own words, after 48 hours.

How many members are on this site? .......Hundreds?
And how many topics are there? .....Thousands? And new ones being created continually, every day.

You all talk as if a person deleting their posts was a catastrophe. It's simply not true. Threads that have value are made up of individual posts that have value. If one of your posts has any value in the first place---then it would still have exactly its same value. Ideas, arguments, reasons---these stand on their own. However, if you write as if you are in a trivial phone conversation, like Jayson has in this thread, then your posts don't have any value to begin with, and so none would be lost. If you want to remember the particular idea that prompted you to write, then quote it.

...With hundreds of members and thousands of topics, being added to every day, what is even the big deal if someone really feels the need to delete their post, or even all of them!---as rare as that would be?

At this point, someone may want to regress back to the position that, "ILP owns all your shit, 48 hours after you send it". That's simply not true either. Imagine this scenario: …We're all living in a house together---the same house---and I end up painting this really great painting. Well, some time later, it's time for me to move out. Who here is going to argue that I should not be able to take my painting with me? I might even have been inspired to paint by something you did or said---it doesn't matter. Who here is arguing that I shouldn't be able to take my painting?? The way you all behave, I assume you would want to say, "Well, what about my empty wall!?!?", as you dab your eyes with a tissue. You have hundreds of people already living in the house, and with thousands of new paintings just waiting to move in---and you're all acting really strangely (to me) in insisting that a person shouldn't be able to do what they want with their painting (read: post). I'm asking you to be bigger than that, frankly.

In many ways, it's not productive to talk about a situation like this---since, if we're balancing pros and cons, we have to weigh what's likely to happen, and not what's merely possible. But since many of you seem to think that ILP will TOTALLY COLLAPSE at the very foundation if you let people just have creative control, I felt like at least addressing it.

I declare no, because you've been given pages upon pages of reasons, including mine.

What do you want at this point?
A good reason?
We gave them. You don't think anyone's reasons are good.
We do.
You don't.

So what do you want now?

I also think that it's funny that on one hand you'll write:

At this point, someone may want to regress back to the position that, "ILP owns all your shit, 48 hours after you send it". That's simply not true either.

But also write:

Legally speaking, I'm not sure who's content it is.

Well, I can tell you who's content it is legally: ILP's.

So, once again.
What do you want now?

Well, I can tell you who's content it is legally: ILP's.

Could you please point me to the place where I make a legal argument? This is about what ILP should do (but the 'should' is not in a legal sense). Philosophers don't argue the legality, they argue the ethics.

It's no wonder you think you've provided a bunch of good reasons, which have stood up---you simply don't read very carefully. So, you can maybe understand why I'm annoyed.

Whether you are making a legal case or not, you are flipping back and forth between two subject matters:
1) Who owns the right to the content.
2) Whether infinite editing will provide increased quality.

You often cite that the post content is yours and not ILP's.
Yet, you claim to be arguing ethics and morals every time that someone points out that ILP has the legal ownership rights of the content posted to its site.
Great, get all ethical as you would like.
No one here is saying that you aren't the ethical owner of your ideas. You retain all of your intellectual property rights to your content, and you do so legally.
You can do anything with your ideas that you would like anywhere else, however, as soon as you hit the submit button you have given your thought to ILP as content, and that content belongs to ILP.

So rights is a dead-end subject, as rights hasn't anything to offer you in regards to either ethics or legality.

The other argument point that you bring up is that you hold that ILP will attract better quality posts if members have a privilege of infinite editing of their supplied content.

You have given us no case example at all that proves that if we open up editing infinitely for regular members, that a flock of increased quality in posts will occur.
Contrary to this, we have pointed out that ILP already offered this privilege previously.
As such, we can certainly look backwards at our database of records and state whether or not those posts were of higher quality to those in circulation now.

There is no noticeable difference in the quality of the posts made in general between the two formats of privileges.
What there is, however, is an increase in contextual quality.

You would like for us to allow for a decrease in contextual quality (regardless of how small you may think it is; it is far larger of a concern to us, regardless if you care: we do) for an alleged increase in content quality.

You have no evidence of this exchange taking place.
Yet, we have solid evidence that this does not take place.
ILP's limited editing ability is a relatively new policy, far younger than the site itself.

And that database is wide open to you as well.
There is no data that shows proof that if we allow contextual quality to be hindered (again, even if you do not see it as such, you - as the proposition to the staff - must accept that we do if you want to compel us to anything. Our concerns should be of your interest if you want our attention) that we will receive a net return in content quality.

So far, the best that I've seen you provide is to try to compel us to at least give it a shot and see what happens.
As I wrote just above, and we've explained to you several times already, we did give it a shot and we saw what happened.
ILP gave it a shot for 6 years.

After reviewing many issues, not just editing, that were a cause of problems, the staff evaluated a compromised position of limited privileged access to editing among many other changes in policy in 2010.

Since then, we have been extremely pleased with the increased retention of the quality of context on ILP.
We have also not observed a difference in the quality of content within ILP in reaction to the editing feature policy change.

Where we have witnessed an increase in quality, it has been related to the more immediate and clear consequences for slandering and belittling members with inflammatory or derogatory posts.
This policy shift did increase the quality of discussions as it reduced the amount of irrelevant back and forth badgering of each other in the discussions, rather than discussions on the subject at hand.

We do not hold a causal link between the edit feature policy change and the increase in discussion quality.
However, if we did, then we would be standing absolutely counter to you and stating that we have seen an increase of quality in the content since the change of the policy.
But, as stated, we don't hold that this was due to the editing feature.
Instead, it was due to the tighter control over disrespectful and topically irrelevant behaviors between members.


At this point, you have been given all of our reasons.
Further, we have also made it extremely clear that we have heard all of your presented examples, reasons, and thoughts on the matter.

It is not that we do not understand you.
It is not that we are not getting it.
It is not that we think your arguments are invalid or valid unto themselves.

We simply disagree with your proposition's claim.
We have explained, exhaustively, our reasons.

You don't give a flying fuck what our reasons are.
You want your posts because they are your posts and because they are your posts you want your posts, and to convince us of this, you claim this will increase quality.

We simply disagree with your assessment.

Now that it is perfectly clear that ILP will not be changing its policy at all on this matter:

What else can we do for you?

---no response---

What convinces me is the experience of it having happened, multiple times. Your brush-offs, on the other hand, do not, no matter how often you repeat your disbelief that anyone could think it would be a problem - the mods fairly unanimously think it was a problem, until the Edit restrictions were brought in. Continue disbelieving, as you will.

You continue to state: "It's a bad thing, because I think it's a bad thing---I don't care if you don't". I'm not denying that you think it was a bad thing---I'm giving you a reason to think that you're mistaken in your perception of it. You haven't addressed that. If I'm right, then you're like the guy who thinks his finger breaks, when he puts it in a glass of water. Here's the gist of my reason, since you seem unwilling to go find it for yourself.

Threads that have value are made up of individual posts that have value. Individual posts that have value contain arguments, reasons, ideas, carefully written. These posts stand on their own--they're not harmed when someone else in the thread deletes their post. You can understand everything that Callicles says, you don't need to have read Thrasymachus before him, in the same dialogue of Plato. You can understand this (my) post, without reading yours. It's because my post is valuable. Therefore, if someone were to delete a post, there would be no value lost in the thread, if that thread was valuable in the first place. If the thread is more like a trivial phone conversation full of one-liners---then context would be lost from someone deleting a post. But this is a philosophy site, and nobody is concerned about preserving a trivial phone-like conversation. And the main reason why anyone would even want to delete a post---is because it was in a trivial phone-like conversation. So, no harms done.

This is a separate point from the issue of whether what an individual writes belongs to the individual, or to ILP. But, if you've agreed with my thought-experiments, then you're already past that point, and ready to weigh the pros and cons. So, weigh them while you keep in mind the individuals who it affects.

ILP has hundreds of members and thousands of threads---being added to everyday. Philosophical life goes on at ILP. There's no real impact. Even if you disagreed with my quote above, there'd still be barely a drop in a bucket----hardly enough to deny someone my suggestion.

Again, I've claimed that you are mistaken to think that what happened is a bad thing. I'm not denying that you think it was a bad thing---I'm just giving you a reason to think you're mistaken. Nothing is taken away from your posts in the thread where all mine are deleted.

OK...and...
Again, we've claimed that you are mistaken to think that what happened is a good thing. We're not denying that you think it was a good thing. We've just giving you reasons to think you're mistaken. Quite a bit was taken away from the discussion in the thread where all your posts were deleted.


Again, where you see inconsequential (without evidence), we see consequential (with evidence).
This is not resolvable.
ILP Staff will not agree with you on the value of impact.

Once again.
Now that it is perfectly clear that ILP will not be changing its policy at all on this matter:

What else can we do for you?

Now, perhaps you would like to rethink whether or not I've been as unreasonable you seem to be painting me out to be.
Perhaps you should also not send me private messages that insult, not only myself, but the entire staff for no better reason than we simply disagree with you.

And maybe...just maybe, you might just actually read & comprehend the posts that I have provided which outline in rather considerable detail as to the justifications for our position (saying nothing of the other members).

And just possibly...on a shred of fleeting hope...you will respect our position and understand that we have made our collective decision and are not simply dismissing you irrationally.

I can hope that you see this, regardless of what I fear will be the case.

Don't send me private messages that insult me and the staff in attempts to get me to stop posting in this thread, which is in regards to a board policy change request.

[von Rivers]

What convinces me is the experience of it having happened, multiple times. Your brush-offs, on the other hand, do not, no matter how often you repeat your disbelief that anyone could think it would be a problem - the mods fairly unanimously think it was a problem, until the Edit restrictions were brought in. Continue disbelieving, as you will.

You continue to state: "It's a bad thing, because I think it's a bad thing---I don't care if you don't". I'm not denying that you think it was a bad thing---I'm giving you a reason to think that you're mistaken in your perception of it. You haven't addressed that. If I'm right, then you're like the guy who thinks his finger breaks, when he puts it in a glass of water. Here's the gist of my reason, since you seem unwilling to go find it for yourself.

Threads that have value are made up of individual posts that have value. Individual posts that have value contain arguments, reasons, ideas, carefully written. These posts stand on their own--they're not harmed when someone else in the thread deletes their post. You can understand everything that Callicles says, you don't need to have read Thrasymachus before him, in the same dialogue of Plato. You can understand this (my) post, without reading yours. It's because my post is valuable. Therefore, if someone were to delete a post, there would be no value lost in the thread, if that thread was valuable in the first place. If the thread is more like a trivial phone conversation full of one-liners---then context would be lost from someone deleting a post. But this is a philosophy site, and nobody is concerned about preserving a trivial phone-like conversation. And the main reason why anyone would even want to delete a post---is because it was in a trivial phone-like conversation. So, no harms done.

This is a separate point from the issue of whether what an individual writes belongs to the individual, or to ILP. But, if you've agreed with my thought-experiments, then you're already past that point, and ready to weigh the pros and cons. So, weigh them while you keep in mind the individuals who it affects.

ILP has hundreds of members and thousands of threads---being added to everyday. Philosophical life goes on at ILP. There's no real impact. Even if you disagreed with my quote above, there'd still be barely a drop in a bucket----hardly enough to deny someone my suggestion.


Jayson,

Apologies, I was not calling you "irrational"---I was just saying you were not giving reasons, which is what I assumed it was your intention not to do. If your intention was not to give reasons, then you're not really irrational---because it's on purpose. --You were merely forcasting the expected outcome of my suggestion, by your own admission. Kudos to you.

[Jayson]

Thank you for the apology, however, do not lose sight of the fact that I have also given you a hell of a lot of reasons in the quite lengthy explanations that I have given, and that even after these explanatory posts - as well as creating an example thread for reference of points - you have continued to belittle my person, rather than address any of the points that I have presented.

For instance:

1. You have not once responded to the fact that the feature you request was in circulation for 9 years (I have to correct my earlier citation of 6 years, as ILP has been around since 2001, not 2004), and that we - the staff - have critically followed the editing feature and contextual consistency desire of the site, and all concerns therein prior to the edit feature policy adjustment and after the policy adjustment.
2. You have also not responded to the fact that we, the ILP staff, have not noticed any threat to the quality of content on ILP as a result of the edit policy change.
3. Nor have you responded to the fact that, in the view of the ILP staff, the quality of content has risen over the past year in comparison to the recent previous years; rather than what you are implying, where ILP has just continued to decrease in content quality following the edit button policy change.
4. Nor have you responded to the fact that there is no verifiable information that shows that the edit post feature correlates with increasing the quality of site content.

[Nah]

Jayson, tentative, and Nah...

Either address my suggestion, or just don't post.

According to your "me me" world view, my actions are mine.
You are trying to control what is not yours, again.
Your words contradict what you have been preaching, over and over.

It's like someone telling others "Don't steal" while keep stealing.
It makes your words less convincing, interesting, and so on.
Can you understand?

Nah: You keep saying "ILP owns what you write" ---read below the points in bold.

I never wrote "ILP owns what you write".
If you think otherwise, somehow, and if you insist, quote my words and prove it.

[von Rivers]

You have not once responded to the fact that the feature you request was in circulation for 9 years and that we - the staff - have critically followed the editing feature and contextual consistency desire of the site, and all concerns therein prior to the edit feature policy adjustment and after the policy adjustment.

Is it your claim that you let a policy go on for 9 years that was as disasterous as you've made it out to be? You changed the policy after someone deleted all their posts. And the likelihood of that happening again will be in another 9 years. Frankly, I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to respond to in this point.

You have also not responded to the fact that we, the ILP staff, have not noticed any threat to the quality of content on ILP as a result of the edit policy change.

I have been a member here for nearly 7 years. I am telling you the quality is not as good. And almost everybody agrees that the quality of content is "not what it used to be". Ask Only_Humean, he even said so. If you don't notice a problem with much of the content here---then you need to go and read it!

Nor have you responded to the fact that, in the view of the ILP staff, the quality of content has risen over the past year in comparison to the recent previous years; rather than what you are implying, where ILP has just continued to decrease in content quality following the edit button policy change.

No it hasn't. This claim is ridiculous. You know I've been here to see it, right? You've lost the regular participation of a number of the best posters here. Gamer, harvey, James, ...and you've filled them in with people whose names I won't mention. Plus, you keep asking me to leave, rather than improve the site...well, I just might. You keep asking me for proof---well good luck proving your claim!!

Nor have you responded to the fact that there is no verifiable information that shows that the edit post feature correlates with increasing the quality of site content.

Think about it: People are not going to want to explore their ideas and try things out for a site that has the mentality that it owns everything you write after 48 hours for the rest of eternity. You have no verifiable information for any of the claims you've made above. At least my forecast is reasonable.

[Jayson]

Is it your claim that you let a policy go on for 9 years that was as disasterous as you've made it out to be? You changed the policy after someone deleted all their posts. And the likelihood of that happening again will be in another 9 years. Frankly, I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to respond to in this point.

No, it was multiple cases over the years in which various regular and periodic occurrences of deletion of posts and content occurred.
I never once implied that it was a policy made from one single user, thread, or post.
I do not believe we have ever made a policy based off of such a limited scope.
The decision was made after assessing a pattern of multiple threads and whether those threads were in the form in which the administrator and moderating staff wished to see the content displayed and understood, as well as whether or not they adhered to one of the basic foundational rules outlined on ILP:

ix) The edit button

The edit button is there for you to correct spelling mistakes or minor errors in your post. It is not there for you to delete yours posts thus ruining the sense of entire threads.

[archived]FORUM RULES/GUIDELINES/LAWS

It was not up to the satisfaction of the staff, and therefore a reduction of the feature was implemented.

The point readily stands that the feature request that you are asking for was present before, and that the staff evaluated the site's performance and found that the edit feature was causing a disjoint between the staff's vision of ILP and what was in place at the time.

I have been a member here for nearly 7 years. I am telling you the quality is not as good. And almost everybody agrees that the quality of content is "not what it used to be". Ask Only_Humean, he even said so. If you don't notice a problem with much of the content here---then you need to go and read it!

Even though I disagree with you on the quality being worse, let me address your assertion with the axiom that quality has slid.
Do you really think that the entire case of post quality rests on the shoulders of the edit feature?
There couldn't be any other factors to quality of content aside from the edit feature?

See, in my experience of looking over the staff section of the board, most of the members you are speaking of below left because they were bothered, not by the edit feature, but by the increase of hands-on moderation and increased restrictions on behavioral tolerance.
Most of the people that have left, have left because they have felt that the freedom of expression was in some fashion being repressed by the new standards of moderation.

I don't recall a single thread in the staff section where it was discussed about the leaving of a long term member due to a rant about the editing feature.

In fact, you are the first person that I've seen raise hell about it.

No it hasn't. This claim is ridiculous. You know I've been here to see it, right? You've lost the regular participation of a number of the best posters here. Gamer, harvey, James, ...and you've filled them in with people whose names I won't mention. Plus, you keep asking me to leave, rather than improve the site...well, I just might. You keep asking me for proof---well good luck proving your claim!!

As far as I have witnessed in the staff discussion, the larger part of the staff seems satisfied with the overall quality of the discussions.

Also, I didn't ask you to leave.
I simply stated that if you are so bothered by a policy in which we will not be changing, then perhaps another site that allows for more freedom in the terms you are demanding would be more appealing to you.
I cannot force you to like the policy.

Think about it: People are not going to want to explore their ideas and try things out for a site that has the mentality that it owns everything you write after 48 hours for the rest of eternity. You have no verifiable information for any of the claims you've made above. At least my forecast is reasonable.

Where's the evidence of this fear?
As you so noted yourself, we have several new members every week, and several new posts every day.
I'm not seeing where there is a lack of interest in posting due to this feature being moderated.

We have a number of users here at ILP that have published works in some fashion or another.
I haven't seen any of them refrain from posting provocative posts, or engaging in discussions due to the editing feature moderation.

As we've mentioned several times, it is also perfectly acceptable to ask a moderator for a specific request of alteration of content.
It will be reviewed and decided upon on a case by case basis.


In Summary
Your position, at this point, seems to be two part:

1. To suggest that the policy change on the edit feature drove away long standing members that were a form of a backbone to content which you liked.
   As I stated before, the large majority of people that have left ILP with a bad taste in their mouth have done so in frustration with the new standards of behavioral intolerance.
2. To suggest that the editing feature is preventing potentially provocative posters from ever signing up or posting their provocative ideas.
   To this idea, I still see no such case or evidence.
   Where is the individual that is refraining from signing up and posting to ILP over the edit feature?

The edit feature is not what determines the quality of posting on ILP.
The members determine the quality of posting on ILP.
And most of the membership you are speaking of left because of the overall philosophy of the new moderation direction regarding acceptable conduct and recourse thereof; not the edit feature.

[d63]

Speaking from experience of someone that tends to post a lot of stupid shit:

I do, a lot of times, wish I could go back and delete some posts or edit them after the the time is up.

But at the same time, the way they get buried with time is just as good.

We're always more than what we say at any given time. If my colleages who post on here with me don't get that, then we're screwed anyway.

We're here to evolve, not present ourselves in any final form.

[von Rivers]

The point readily stands that the feature request that you are asking for was present before, and that the staff evaluated the site's performance and found that the edit feature was causing a disjoint between the staff's vision of ILP and what was in place at the time.

And you were wrong. See my argument about what makes a thread valuable, and what would and wouldn't take away value from a thread. If you feel like being the first person to address that argument, then that would be great. The bottom line is, if you have my suggestion in place for 9 years, and you let it go on for 9 years---then it's not that bad. In fact, it's not even bad at all.

If ILP has the mindset that it owns and controls everything you write here, 48 hours after you write it---for the rest of time.... Does it not seem obvious to you that people will be hesitant about writing good stuff here? Regardless, I've been here roughly 7 years---I'm telling you, a new comer, that it hasn't gotten better---it's gotten worse. Everyone agrees with that---again, go ask Only_Humean. Ask Old Gobbo. You're the only one saying it hasn't, and I assume it's because you're new. You keep asking me for "proof", even though what I'm saying is intuitively obvious. --Why don't you try and prove that the site has improved...

Most of the people that have left, have left because they have felt that the freedom of expression was in some fashion being repressed by the new standards of moderation.

It is. Give back creative control.

We have a number of users here at ILP that have published works in some fashion or another.
I haven't seen any of them refrain from posting provocative posts, or engaging in discussions due to the editing feature moderation.

You will tend NOT to see what someone DOESN'T post. Doesn't that seem obvious to you?

[Jayson]

Answer me these two questions which you avoided.

Do you think that the edit feature is the key to increasing quality on ILP?
Do you think that "old timers" have left because the edit feature was moderated?

Also, it dawns on me that you are confusing provocative with my "quality of discussion".
I have maintained that the quality of discussion (what is referred to as the content, and is the nature of behavior of discourse: how well discourse takes place) has increased.
This is not the same as stating that the quality of provocative topics has increased, and I find that hard to calculate honestly as each person finds varying subject matter provocative. The longer one is here, the less provocative the same topics will become as they have a wealth of witness to topics (ergo, earlier I had mentioned my own personal expression of tiring of "god" topics in the Religion section).

[tentative]

Monooq,

Does it not seem obvious to you that people will be hesitant about writing good stuff here? Regardless, I've been here roughly 7 years---I'm telling you, a new comer, that it hasn't gotten better---it's gotten worse. Everyone agrees with that---

You joined in May of 2004 and I joined in November of the same year. So I have "old timers" status as well, and I dispute your claim that ILP is worse than when we first joined in 2004. In most positive ways, ILP is better. There are fewer pissing contests and even the few that come up aren't as bloodthirsty.. The notion that the "good stuff" isn't being written here is bullshit. The ratio of good stuff to crappola is about the same. I'll give you that content is different, but it isn't better or worse. Have some good people drifted off? Of course. It's the nature of ALL discussion boards. You can only say the same shit over and over just so many times, and the GAS factor begins to take it's toll. Fortunately, some of the people who left were real shitheads or crazy motherfuckers. And just as we see with new members, some are worth engaging and some we can hardly wait to see them hit the door. So the "good 'ol days" aren't a damned bit different than today. The only thing that changes is the personas.

Incidentally, claiming authority by virtue of longevity is a shitty argument. You've posted 1400 odd posts and I'm closing in on 10,000. Does this mean my opinion is worth six times more? Pffft.

Since you're convinced that the good stuff isn't being written here, where is it being written by all those people who left? Why aren't you there instead of here?

[Only_Humean]

I'm telling you, a new comer, that it hasn't gotten better---it's gotten worse. Everyone agrees with that---again, go ask Only_Humean.

I was referring to the perception people have with time on a forum, rather than the quality of the forum; people always perceive a golden age before. In fact, I explicitly said "I'm saying that's almost always the perception".

I honestly don't see any correlation between the edit functionality change and the quality of threads, with the exception that threads are ruined by mass self-deletion any longer. Please leave me out of your further arguments.

[von Rivers]

Do you think that the edit feature is the key to increasing quality on ILP?

Partly. And here's why:

1. The edit feature respects people's intuitive right to be able to control THEIR OWN content.
2a. The edit feature entails that ILP is not of the mindset that it owns and controls your content, 48 hours after you write it. It entails this, because it entails that ILP is willing to let you control your own content.
2b. People are more willing to bounce their best ideas off of others, and develop their thoughts, here---if ILP is not of the mindset that it owns and controls everything you write.
3. The edit feature will let individuals make the changes they want---so, in the eyes of those individuals, that's a good thing.
4. The edit feature has no adverse impact on a thread, whatsoever. My argument to this conclusion has not once been addressed, by anyone. In the absence of any adverse impact, you should let people have creative control---because the content is theirs. My thought experiment to that conclusion has not been addressed either.

Do you think that "old timers" have left because the edit feature was moderated?

I can only speak for myself. And I'm about to. In fact, why don't you do a poll asking everyone at ILP "whether they would like to be able to add to, edit, or delete their own posts, indefinately". And wait till the sample size reaches a certain number, say 100. (No voting more than once). See what you find. Want the truth? I know that you don't want to do a poll, because people generally want to be able to control WHAT'S THEIRS. That's intuitive.

I wish tentative would link to one of his threads where someone else deleted their post. I have a feeling he can't... And if he does, then I'll be able to explain to him why nothing of value was lost. Other than that, the only people arguing your side have a vested interest in keeping their slimy hands on other people's words.

[Jayson]

Do you think that the edit feature is the key to increasing quality on ILP?

Partly. And here's why:

1. The edit feature respects people's intuitive right to be able to control THEIR OWN content.
2a. The edit feature entails that ILP is not of the mindset that it owns and controls your content, 48 hours after you write it. It entails this, because it entails that ILP is willing to let you control your own content.
2b. People are more willing to bounce their best ideas off of others, and develop their thoughts, here---if ILP is not of the mindset that it owns and controls everything you write.
3. The edit feature will let individuals make the changes they want---so, in the eyes of the individuals, that's a good thing.
4. The edit feature has no adverse impact on a thread, whatsoever. My argument to this conclusion has not once been addressed, by anyone. In the absence of any adverse impact, you should let people have creative control---because the content is theirs. My thought experiment to that conclusion has not been addressed either.

I don't see how any of these are the controlling factors in provocative quality on ILP.
Nor do I see any evidence that people are more willing to post provocative ideas on ILP based on the editing feature.

And you are incorrect on the adverse impact on a thread.
We have already discussed this.
I fully understand that you do not consider it to be an adverse consequence. That's fine.
The entire staff and the administrator cardinally disagrees with you, as the end result of threads with posts removed fail to meet the standard of discussion quality presentation desired by the staff and administrator.

A standard of acceptance is not an objective rule.
It is a subjective ruling based on what is of value and what is not of value.
The staff values more in regards to the integrity of the presentation of the quality of the discourse than you do.

Do you think that "old timers" have left because the edit feature was moderated?

I can only speak for myself. And I'm about to. In fact, why don't you do a poll asking everyone at ILP "whether they would like to be able to add to, edit, or delete their own posts, indefinately". And wait till the sample size reaches a certain number, say 100. (No voting more than once). See what you find. Want the truth? I know that you don't want to do a poll, because people generally want to be able to control WHAT'S THEIRS. That's intuitive.

I wish tentative would link to one of his threads where someone else deleted their post. I have a feeling he can't... And if he does, then I'll be able to explain to him why nothing of value was lost. Other than that, the only people arguing your side have a vested interest in keeping their slimy hands on other people's words.

I would not do such a poll.
If we were to do a poll, then that poll would be to ask posters to respond with whether or not they are refraining from making posts of their thoughts on ILP because the edit feature prevents them from further editing after 48 hours.

I'm not interested in how many people want the edit feature.
I'm interested in this claim you have that people are keeping quiet solely because of the edit feature.

And if you so choose to leave over the edit feature, well...go ahead.
Again, I can't force you to like ILP policy. That's your power, not mine.

I can only simply explain that I see no link between provocative quality and the edit feature, but I do see a link between the preservation of the presentation of the quality of the discussion and the edit feature.
Notably, that it reduces the quality of the preservation of presentation of the quality of the discussion below the threshold of acceptance in which the ILP staff holds.
And I can only simply explain that I see the cited "old timers" leaving over a disagreement on the restrictions to the privileged rating of the freedom of expression; not the edit feature.
You would be the first if you chose to leave over it.
Then I would revise my claim to state that I've only seen one "old timer" leave over the edit feature.

[iambiguous]

I wish tentative would link to one of his threads where someone else deleted their post. I have a feeling he can't... And if he does, then I'll be able to explain to him why nothing of value was lost. Other than that, the only people arguing your side have a vested interest in keeping their slimy hands on other people's words.

Suppose another believes that, on the contrary, something of value is lost? Would he or she perforce be wrong because they do not share your own appreciation of what is or is not valuable?

From my vantage point it seems obvious that reading a thread in which segments have been deleted may impact adversely on the quality of the exchange. For some if not for others. In fact, that's just commonsense. Or so it seems to me.

But if you don't agree I won't stipulate this means you are -- necessarily -- wrong.

[von Rivers]

Jayson,

Why do you not want to poll the people who use ILP as to whether they would like the ability to edit their posts, indefinately?

Who is ILP for, if not the people who use it? Let them decide. (Which reminds me of a nice Nietzsche quote, where he says to the Sun, "Great star, what would you be if you had not those for whom you shine?" ...or something like that)

1. Make a thread.
2. Ask the question: "Would you prefer to be able to edit your posts, indefinately?"
3. One response ("yes" or "no") per poster---you can judge that by their username and their IP.

If the majority says "yes"---then the majority values my suggestion, and that would make ILP better.

[iambiguous]

If the majority says "yes"---then the majority values my suggestion, and that would make ILP better.

The majority saying yes to something doesn't make the minority less reasonable. At least not necessarily. There can only be conflicting points of view here. Then those in power will choose.

But surely there is no way of determining which decision is inherently "better".

And when has adjudicating value judgments ever not been this way? We can try to persuade others to see things as we do. And those in power can make the exchanges as open and democratic as possible.

But a year from now even we might not see things the way we do.

Beyond that, nothing ever gets resolved because, as William Barrett notes, there will always be "conflicting goods" in discussions like these.

But here I think the moderators make the most reasonable arguments. You have 48 hours to make changes and if you need more time you can appeal to them down the road. And allowing folks to delete their posts at will can't help but make the exchanges less coherent.

[Jayson]

Monooq,

ILP is not a democracy for the people.
If it was, then none of the previous rules would have been made, as we did not poll anyone to make those rules.
Nor did the population here decide who their moderators are.

ILP is self satisfying.
ilovephilosophy.com is for ilovephilosophy.com.

The mission statement of ilovephilosophy.com states that:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=167245#p2056441

Purpose

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.

As such, ILP's staff, who are "here to promote the values and principles expressed above", are interested in a preservation of this mission statement, which includes the value of ilovephilosophy.com (the internet forum) satisfying the requirement to be a "utility as a haven for the ideas it holds".

Part of what being a utility that is a haven for the ideas in which it holds is defined as by the staff and administrator of ilovephilosophy.com is an internet forum which properly captures the recorded history of, and preserves the fullest capacity of that history for future reading, the full nature of discourse on any given topic of the communities interest herein.

Because it is also promotional to the utility as a haven of ideas to ensure proper communication, the edit feature is left in as a member level privilege so that errors which may impact the writer's intended articulation to the immediate commentators and readers can be circumvented for the betterment of preservation of the presentation of the quality of discourse.
Because the effective impact of this consideration is related to the immediate commentators and readers, and that tardy or malignant editing is counter productive to the preservation of the historical record of the discussion as it took place, the edit feature is restricted to the average time-frame in which an average member will need to make an articulation correction within their post.

And because there are times in which a post does not meet with the average experience of time in discourse, the staff is open to requests to make changes post member-edit privilege time windows.


Again, ILP is not a democracy.
So no, I am not interested in what the masses want for candy or not exclusively.
I am also interested in what the staff and administrator are interested in within regards to adherence to the mission statement of ilovephilosophy.com.

[von Rivers]

Jayson,

Let me see if I've understood where you stand, now...

1. You don't care what the people who use ILP want, and you refuse to ask them. "ILP.com is for ILP.com", as you say---whatever that means.
2. You refuse to address my argument about what makes a thread valuable. You simply state that you don't agree, and give no reasons.
3. You want to preserve the most possible posts, and that's all. As if quantity was a desiderata. (--The "history" of what? Garbage?)
4. You are of the mindset that you ought to own and control everything written here.

To anyone who reads this thread, these points attached to you will seem obvious.

[Faust]

The truth is, Monie, that we just don't like you. No one does. I've asked around.

We just didn't want to tell you.

[Jayson]

1. You don't care what the people who use ILP want, and you refuse to ask them. "ILP.com is for ILP.com", as you say---whatever that means.

No.
I do not care what the members of ILP want exclusively.
I am also interested in what the staff and administrator are interested in within regards to adherence to the mission statement of ilovephilosophy.com.

And that second part is what ILP.com is for ILP.com means.
It means, that the site satisfies the owners and moderators of the site.
The owner and the moderators of the site ilovephilosphy.com also happen to be interested in taking into account what people would like, as well as what they (the owners and moderators) desire the site to accomplish in their collective vision.

If we weren't interest at all, as you tried to make it sound, in public interest, then we wouldn't even bother with a suggestion section.

2. You refuse to address my argument about what makes a thread valuable. You simply state that you don't agree, and give no reasons.

I gave a rather lengthy list of information over time on that subject.
But my last post answers that question in radical length and detail.

Purpose

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.

As such, ILP's staff, who are "here to promote the values and principles expressed above", are interested in a preservation of this mission statement, which includes the value of ilovephilosophy.com (the internet forum) satisfying the requirement to be a "utility as a haven for the ideas it holds".

Part of what being a utility that is a haven for the ideas in which it holds is defined as by the staff and administrator of ilovephilosophy.com is an internet forum which properly captures the recorded history of, and preserves the fullest capacity of that history for future reading, the full nature of discourse on any given topic of the communities interest herein.

Or, just before that I wrote:

"the presentation of the quality of the discourse"

And before that, I elaborated that we score this as:

the quality of discussion (what is referred to as the content, and is the nature of behavior of discourse: how well discourse takes place)

You are after an increase in the quality of provocative topics.
That, I addressed as well.

This is not the same as stating that the quality of provocative topics has increased, and I find that hard to calculate honestly as each person finds varying subject matter provocative. The longer one is here, the less provocative the same topics will become as they have a wealth of witness to topics (ergo, earlier I had mentioned my own personal expression of tiring of "god" topics in the Religion section).

3. You want to preserve the most possible posts, and that's all. As if quantity was a desiderata. (--The "history" of what? Garbage?)

That is incorrect.
Again, the mission statement charges the moderation staff to be interested in:

Purpose

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.

4. You are of the mindset that you ought to own and control everything written here.

No I'm not.
I'm not in ownership of anything on ILP.
I am a moderator, not the owner of the site.
My interest is adhering to the mission statement of the site as declared by the collective moderating staff and the owner of the site.

To anyone who reads this thread, these points attached to you will seem obvious.

*shrug*
What was the point of this?
Anyone?
Hey, everyone still reading...does this resound to you?
I'm not even sure what was meant by it, but perhaps he's right and all of you reading can tell me that these points are obvious and I:
1: Don't care about the ILP communities interests.
2: Failed to make it clear what the staff values as the quality of a discussion.
3: Want to preserve garbage.
4: And want to personally own all of your content.


Perhaps I should just stick with the costume of The Father since I'm being painted as such...again.

[von Rivers]

At least Faust is honest---which I appreciate more than whatever you are, Jayson. (It's not some "The Father" guy, whatever that is... more just like a bad faith ignorer)

[Xunzian]

One thing worth pointing out is that for a long time we had to rely on the honor system for many of these rules. For the most part it worked but all it takes are a few prolific posters on a bender to really mess things up. I had to do clean-up for some of those back-in-the-day and it wasn't pretty. So the system was changed to make sure that complete cock-ups like that couldn't happen and it was very much a change for the better.

Basically, once you've posted something it belongs to the community. Deleting it would be stealing from the community for reasons of personal vanity. That is petty and shouldn't be allowed.

[Jayson]

At least Faust is honest---which I appreciate more than whatever you are, Jayson. (It's not some "The Father" guy, whatever that is... more just like a bad faith lackey)

Paint me as you wish I suppose.
Either way...I think right about now is when I'll revisit my original prediction.

ILP will simply not be releasing that standard in any manner you are looking for.
I'm not here debating or waxing philosophy. I'm telling you that your "suggestion" won't happen so it's rather pointless to go on and on about it as if reasoning will suddenly change anything.

Hey! Look!
I was...right.

And really...if you had been compelling, believe me, regardless of what my position might be, if it were counter to the rest of the staff, then it would be overruled in a heart beat if the rest of the staff agreed with you.
*crickets*

Instead of seeing that I'm taking the time to explain to you why the staff holds the position that it does, and the reasons behind it that you so dearly desired, you only seem to want to paint me as some unreasonable tyrant and a slew of other slanders that you have labeled me as along the way.

Love you too babe, love you too. *smooches*

[von Rivers]

Not a tyrant... a bad faith ignorer. --Because of the way you ignore, in bad faith.

As if quoting the policy is a reason against changing it.
As if claiming to consider what people think and not even doing a poll are consistent.
As if telling me that you're a moderator, and not the owner, is a reason to think that ILP does not have the mindset that it owns and controls all your work.
As if posting unrelated pictures, making off topic posts, mass quoting and repetition are not grounds for calling you far worse than I have.

Faust is honest about why it's not being changed. You're not. You're ignoring in bad faith. --That's not name calling, that's honesty.

[Jayson]

Yeah, the reason we're not changing a board standard is all because we don't like you.
Ego much there?

As if quoting the policy is a reason against changing it.

I didn't stop at quoting the policy.
I also explained what that policy meant and the reasons for it.

As if claiming to consider what people think and not even doing a poll are consistent.

It's not up to me alone as to whether we do an official poll.
And I said that I would personally be interested in the proper question: whether or not people are refraining from posting due to the edit feature being restricted.
If not, then there's no reason to change anything.

As if telling me that you're a moderator, and not the owner, is a reason to think that ILP does not have the mindset that it owns and controls all your work.

I didn't say that.
I said, in response to you stating:
*rewind* *play*

4. You are of the mindset that you ought to own and control everything written here.

I stated that I don't own anything on this site.
And that includes posts that I have made.

The content posted to this site legally belong to ILP.
And ethically, that makes sense.
Otherwise, we can circle back to what I said way back at the beginning where ILP no longer owns itself.

As if posting unrelated pictures, making off topic posts, mass quoting and repetition are not grounds for calling you far worse than I have.

No...not really.
I've given you an extreme amount of patience and explanation.
You have given me slander and denial.

I haven't received much from you back in regards to several points that I have made.
Heck...I even cited sections previously where you chose not to respond to explanations of the staff's reasons by writing,

--no response--

In fact, I think I've probably given you more detailed information so far on the standing of our policy and with accompanying explanation of our terms, values, and reasons therein than many others in this thread have done.

Do you want me to re-post every single post where I have explained the policy and its reason for position for a second time?

And I find it interesting that you didn't even really have anything to respond to the further clarifications that I added to your 4 points, in which are explanations.
Instead, you have switched to painting me as not explaining anything, while at the same time ignoring an entire response that I gave you which contains explanations.