Other complaints I have is that half the mods are almost never here, and only Ucc ever actually participates in discussions.
Some good things are that the other half of mods are active on an almost daily basis and do their job properly.
I just dislike the overall style of moderation I described in my post above, where a person can blatantly troll and spew non-philosophy but get away with it, but one insult and everybody gets all jumpy. That makes me lean slightly towards no, but I still don’t feel inclined to vote.
Maybe the following formaula would be the right one for ILP: “A mod is no god but always present”. So mods should never try to be gods, not even godwannbes, but they should always be present.
I hugely agree with you in that point, because that is indeed a huge problem.
I apparently voted “No” before the middle of January. I suppose that is because I often enough feel there should be stricter moderation. I think the ban on insults–verbal violence, active aggression–is a good thing, but as you say that does not cut it. Often enough I feel there are too many cretins, or too much cretinousness. I just found out this word etymologically derives from “Christian”! And indeed, what I mean is people who are–often enough suspiciously–cocksure about their positions. I’m not calling any names, but suffice it to say there are several in this thread. Not you, though.
The solution of that huge problem should never be a quantitative one. We do not need more rules, we do not need more moderators. What we need is another quality.
Not sure if this is the right place for a discussion on my custom title. Then again, the mods are free to split it off from this thread (something I think they should perhaps do more often–though they may have good reasons for doing it as seldom as possible). Also, it’s your thread.
“Supremacist” by itself can also be short for “white supremacist”. “Philosophical supremacist” would then mean “a white supremacist who is philosophical”, whatever that means. I’m a philosophical supremacist in the sense that “philosophical” takes the place of “white”. Thus “supremacist” in my title means I believe “that one group of people is better than all other groups and should have control over them” (Merriam-Webster)–that group being the philosophers. So yeah, I believe ILP should be moderated so as to most advance philosophy. I understand, though, that to that end the love of ILovePhilosophy must, in cases of a conflict of interest, take precedence over the love of philosophy.
From the French word for “Christian”, which is cognate with the English word.
I consciously did not exclude myself. As I wrote elsewhere, I have become “a Value Philosopher–that is, I now acknowledge, and in fact insist, that my worldview is in the first place a value and only in the second place a fact. It is my will that the world be will to power and nothing besides.” (http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2533971#p2533971)
No. It is not. But I just (journalistically) asked because of the topic of this thread.
Not for “Christian” but for a “poor Christian” in the sense of an “ill Christian” who is retarded because of an inherent hypothyroidism. So I think you mean other “cretins”.
To close the circle:
Are you saying that too many ILP moderators have not enough will to power?
No, not necessarily for “poor Christians” or “ill Christians”, but for anyone who is poor and/or ill, as the Romans tended to see Christians that way–as retards, or “dwarfed and deformed idiots” (Online Etymology Dictionary). I admit my initial rendition was imprecise.
I find it interesting that it’s cognate with “Christian”, though for the connotation of dogmatism as much as for that of idiocy. “Dogmatic idiots”–I guess that’s what I meant.
I don’t see how that follows from anything I said.
Only people who have never experienced actual violence, and/or are mental weaklings, compare violence (physical) with verbal insults.
A person after being verbally insulted:
[tab][/tab]
A person after being physically assaulted:
[tab][/tab]
Physical hurt is characterized by the victim’s loss of control, the victim becomes unable to defend themselves, and gets helplessly pounded by the one imposing their own will upon them. The situation is beyond the victim’s control.
When it comes to verbal conflict a trained, strong mind will be capable of exerting control over itself and determine what affects it, and what doesn’t, to an extent. Simple and stupid minds are easily penetrated and insulted because they lack the self-control and respond to the other on a primitive, instinctive level. In instance of verbal conflict, a so-called victim actively or passively participates in their own victimhood because they are partially in control and therefore responsible.
I wondered if anyone would notice. Nothing personal, it just seemed like a Satyresque nickname.
Only people who are physical weaklings have a problem with physical violence. Anyway, nobody is saying verbal violence is in the same league as physical violence. However, I do think they’re in the same continuum. To me it’s not so much about the content of the insult as about the lack of respect it expresses–a lack that could easily extend to not respecting the victim’s rights to life and liberty, say. Not that I believe in those rights; I just don’t want to be killed or tortured or anything and therefore don’t like the threat suggested by such insults–especially in combination with an anger like the one Satyr recently expressed towards me. (When Fixed Cross told me he thought Aidon was Satyr, my response was: “Aidon? No, man, that’s just a little troll!” Oh, wait…)
I noticed it, but I decided to not mention it, because I did not want to derail my own thread; and that is als the reason for this post: the risk of derailment is given. So, please, keep to the point: “Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?”.
So you, Arbiter (or “Arbeiter” [nobody noticed?], or “Arsebiter”) and Sauwelios, are not satisfied with the ILP moderation and have well founded, justified, reasoned arguments.
What can we do in order to get a better ILP moderation?
Possibly. But too strict moderation would again drive people away, leading to a decrease of mod power. So there’s probably a high point to the proportion between strictness and power, and as I’m no mod here, I don’t know where it is. But yeah, I suppose you could infer that I feel the ILP mods overall do not have strong enough will to power–on ILP, that is.
Yes, but it is an option. A good webforum does not need to have many but good members. It is a matter more of quality than of quantity that shows how good a webforum is. If ILP banks more on quantity than on quality, then it will lose members who bank on quality (and I will be among them). ILP should bank on more quality and hazard the less cruel consequences, because it is better to take a qualitative loss than a qualitative loss.
Yes, but perhaps also leading to a better quality of ILP.
So the change of the ILP moderation is a risk, and probably Carleas does not want to risk anything.
[size=70]P.S.) I do not hope that I am going to be banned because of this post. [/size]
As with all of life, moderating or governing can be very strict as long as it is very consistent and also allows everything to get done that actually needs doing. But that takes intelligence and careful attention.
People (and all animals) prefer strict rules as long as they are consistent and allow for everything truly needed. People can trust things that are consistent.
Many ILP members misuse philosophy and thus also ILP. Why is the misuse of philosophy not the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum named “I Love Philosophy”? The ILP subforum “Religion and Spirituality” is especially misused by those ILP members. The other subforums are less misused but also not free from misuse. Many ILP members circumvernt the valid rules (for example those that refer to ad hominems) by using false or partly false definitions, preconditions (premises) in order to troll, to derail threads, and to enforce ideologies or other political orders that have nothing to do with philosophy. Thus they are always off-topic and in violation of ILP rules but not or seldom of the main ILP rule: “ad hominems are not allowed”.
Philosophy is not liberalism.
The misuse of philosophy should be the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum named “I Love Philosophy”.
I would think a misuse would be impossible to ascertain do to the various philosophical approaches, schools, and intended uses of it. a misuse would be nearly impossible to discover, since the many formed uses are too numerous to detect. I may have an intentional project t in mind, whereas someone with whom a discussion is going on, may have another reason for the same, if any at all. in philosophy, at times, the levels of communication are not always appearent, to enable the communicators to understand each other, or to come to anything but an agreed on agreement. The times are rare when mutual understanding becomes implicitly taken for what it implies.
[/tab]
[/tab]
[/size]