No substance, no dealing with posts responding to what you wrote. It’s OK, you’re not a philosopher or a good discussion partner. Your vote for no change is noted. You have an opinion.
I’m pointing out that someone is having to appeal to emotions and prod others with inflammatory language to bridge the gap in the reasoning that they’re able to produce. If you can’t accept that and address it then that’s on you. Eat a dick.
I’ll happily address it when you address some of the responses you got earlier in the thread. What I see is a potshotter, throw in a comment type of poster, not someone who is interested in engaging with ideas. Serendipity, Phyllo, Carleas and I have made a lot of points, reasoning our way through a number of ways at looking at the issue. Your criticism above fits your own posts much better per word than anyone else’s. But sure, if you actually participate in a way that shows you can discuss ideas, I’ll focus on your potshot above.
And you just keep breaking those rules you think cannot be changed.
Stop ad homming and stop baiting people with inflammatory language.
“daddy” and “potshot” are ad homs, and signs of weakness in your ability to reason.
Work on that.
You only get good posts from me when you make good posts, and they have to be ones that I’m interested it. I have no interest in helping you to learn to cope with authority. It’s just boring. I know you’re putting in a lot of work and that you’re trying really hard. You must have strong feelings about all this. But it’s still petty and boring and there’s nothing stimulating about reading it. So I’m just going to be quick and tell you what you’re doing wrong. If you can keep your ego out of it then you can learn and be better, but I’m not going to do the work for you nor will I play the rhetoric game. You know as well as I do that you’re full of shit. I can’t help it if other people will humor it.
If you don’t know as well as I do that you’re full of shit, then I’ll keep throwing out pot shots and you can try and infer from them what you can. I’ll work with you and try and help you out, but I’m not going to do the work for you.
Well, Mr. Reasonable is on board. He is doing precisely what Serendipity and I are suggesting around the issue of shaming. Whether I agree with his assessment of my earlier arguments or not is beside the point, he has taken on the role we suggested and thus implicitly agreed with many of the points I made, especially those in response to Phyllo where we discussing shaming and giving feedback on a general level. He is not letting the current forum rules restrict him in this. A number of people have responded, for example, to Prismatic this way. Blunt, irritated and pointing out patterns. I think this is a good trend and I hope more people do this. I would like to see the encouragment side of this also expanded where good posts are noted publically. We all take more responsibility for making the forum work the way we want to. And by the way I am not taking responsibility for him doing this. He may very well have done this before.
Don’t try and flatter me. It’s tasteless and unbecoming.
That’s a blatant insult and the audacity of which is thumbing your nose at the rules to boot, which were just posted here in detail, and therefore is insult to Carleas and whoever mods this board.
Phyllo, your ally, said daddy viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&p=2693946&hilit=daddy#p2693946
prod others with inflammatory language to bridge the gap in reasoning? 
Oh, I see. Good illustration 
That whole post is an ad hom soaking with intent to demean while pretending to be the victim which is a play from the feminist handbook and a perfect example of how to skirt written rules.
So a post is only deemed good if YOU have interest in it? Well, so, would it involve crayons? 
Yeah that’s an ad hom, but fuck it, after your dispatch it’s evident there’s no one home to ad hom. To wit:
Then what are you doing here? Go back to your video games; this is the adult table.
And here you are reading it.
Ego?
Oh I see. Good demo!
And an unprompted encore performance
That you’re grammatically on par with someone currently working his way through high school? And you’re about that emotionally developed as well? With the attention span of a fruitfly? I mean I’m not telling you to eat dick; just stating the inevitable inferences from the facts that you’ve so vociferously displayed. Either you’ve been here since you were 7, or something seriously went afoul.
With every post you pepper your parlance with provocative pejorative, bridging gaps from sense to nonsense in apparent effort to compensate for some deficiency the malady of which is evidently remedied by potshot jabs of callous calumny at folks who innocently challenged your precious authoritarian worldview which made you so butthurt that you just HAD to return the favor by being the biggest PITA you could. It’s painfully obvious to anyone with even the loneliest brain cell that you never had any purpose here other than to piss people off and disrupt the exchange of ideas.
So if you think we’re so stupid and boring and you don’t want to help, then find a short pier and take a long walk. Alternatively, you’re welcome to hang around continuing to showcase your unreasonability, but don’t be surprised if someone seizes the comedic element of putting your shenanigans on exhibition.
I just read up until you said phylo was my ally. He’s not. Sorry phylo, but I haven’t read enough of your posts so don’t take that personally. I have no idea what your position is here and I don’t know how you think or what your beliefs are. What I do know is that someone is saying you’re my ally, which can’t be true since I’m not really allied with anyone.
You’re arguing from the same position therefore you’re allied whether you know it or not. I know you’re not formally allied, but you effectively are since the effect is the same.
The irony of you calling out your partner in petition as having the nature of a girl in a demeaning sort of way was too irresistible for me not to put on exhibition because clearly the skirt was intended for myself or Karpel and not the guy arguing pro-rules with you.
His position is same as yours. You put a skirt on a guy who is arguing the same position as you.
I’ll defend Phyllo a little: I think he wants an authority he can count on to come to his defense rather than depending on folks too likely to get frustrated and leave. That seems to be a good point.
I said “whichever of you guys”.
I suppose my interest is mainly in this area - taken from the philosophy forum rules - though I consider this incomplete.
[my emphasis added] You could add in various common fallacies, and then responses that even embed quotes as if it is responding but then the response does not fit what it is responding to. I suppose I would want, ideally, patterns like potshotting, not understanding onus and being incoherent. By potshotting I mean focusing on small portions of posts rather than engaging main points, especially if effort has been put in to respond directly to and carefully to the potshotters points. ARgument by evasion, which is rude without breaking politeness rules, as they are now. All this can be much more subtle and it would be unfair to expect Carleas to find these himself or event to adjudicate, especially if a lot of people gave a damn and reported many. Hence my supporting suggestions about using group pressure on such posts. This is happening now and all the participants in this thread have engaged in this, including breaking other rules to do it with impact. I think it would be good if it was less haphazard and I still think that ignoring people is a must, though a later step in the process after engaging with the pattern directly has not worked.
You could say I am suggesting that more patterns of posting are treated like trolling. The problem with trolling as a concept is that it includes intentionality. We determine (somehow) that the person’s intent is to incite rage, outrage and conflict and really does not care about what they are saying. I think intent is trickier to determine over the internet. Certainly people can not engage points made from unconscious motivations. And certainly one can post things that will incite outrage but mean it.
I think it is likely that the most damaging posters are ones who are sincere, and whose abuses are more subtle. They may be aware that certain arguments made them a bit nervous, but still feel that on the whole they are right and their arguments are sound. And then the internet makes it so easy to hide embarrassment and shame if one wants to hide them.
From my frame of mind, “we” is anyone who has come to conclude that human interactions revolving around conflicting goods is embedded in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblvion [for “I”] in a No God world.
Albert Camus being one of the best of them.
On the other hand, unless you do choose suicide, you choose instead to remain among the living. And to the extent that involves interacting socially, politically and economically with others in any particular human communities, you engage your own rendition of that boulder day after day after day. I merely deem such interactions in the is/ought world as revolving in turn around dasein and political economy.
Thus, pertaining to the OP, there does not appear [to me] to be an optimal one-size-fits-all examination and assessment of the conflicting arguments being exchanged regarding the philosophy forum’s policies.
That’s basically the boulder being rolled up and down the posts here.
On the other hand, imagine a philosophy forum in, say, Heaven. There God is the moderator and the administrator. No questioning His rules, right?
When have I ever argued this is not possible? I merely suggest instead that what you construe to be meaningful behaviors generating happiness may well come into conflict with those who insist this interferes with the behaviors that they wish to pursue instead. That, in other words, these narratives are deemed by me to be existential contraptions rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
The point about God is simple: If He does in fact exist, there would exist in turn a transcending font [said by most to be omnisicent and omnipotent] able to resolve these conflicting goods such that the behaviors of mere mortals can be judged on this side of the grave to be or not to be sins. Sin enough [as most Scriptures warn us] and there are consequences on the other side of the grave. For all of eternity as it were.
I note my reasons. I note the extent to which my own quandary here is rooted in my dilemma.
Come on: What else is there but me noting the arguments of others and assessing the extent to which they have convinced me that there is in fact a way up out of the hole that I’ve dug myself into.
And you and your ilk can always be gratified – comforted and consoled – that you are not down in this hole with me and my ilk.
Well, not yet anyway.
If by “he” you mean me, allow me to rejoin…
I do not argue that there is no way in which to determine moral behavior. I merely point out that of late I have not come upon an argument that convinces me that there is.
At least insofar as someone here is actually able to intertwine his or her own moral narrative into a context that most here are likely to be familiar with.
The one on this thread for example.
And the thread itself is meaningful to me in that it exposes yet another example of the point that I do raise about “rules of behavior”.
Consider:
Carleas could embrace one of three policies here…
1] might makes right. It’s his forum and the rules are in sync with that which suits him.
2] right makes might. He has determined that there is in fact an optimal set of rules and that the forum must abide by them.
3] moderation, negotiation and compromise. He recognizes that different folks have different narratives/agendas regarding these things. He has come up with a set of rules/policies [subject to change] that come as close as he deems “the best of possible worlds” might be. Here and now.
Power [rules] wielded somewhere in the murky middle of that which I construe to be embedded in dasein and conflicting goods.
I tried and I didn’t succeed. 
Note to others:
Not to worry. There will almost certainly be further “rounds”.
Indeed, probably until one of us dies. 
The problem is mobile devices make debate too difficult. Forum participation blossomed 2012ish then began waning as iphone popularity grew which relegated comments to potshot one-liners and if you can’t state your position succinctly, humorously, and absent of punctuation, it just won’t be read.
You have to dumb it down for the kiddies because, as Mr R said, if they’re not immediately interested or grow bored within a run-on sentence, then your position sucks because it’s not iphone/ADD compatible.
So, due to technological and intellectual limitations, all we can do is lob mudballs at each other for kicks while we slowly devolve back into the simian.
Mods aren’t enforcing the rules because, if they did, there would be no one left and that hinders “speech-maximization”. If you try to engineer a community with only smart people, then there won’t be anyone there. You have to figure that the ave iq of the US is 98 and probably declining because there is increasingly less selection for high iq (thanks to technology) while smart people often suffer substantial disadvantages as common artifacts of intelligence (See Satoshi Kanazawa’s book: The Intelligence Paradox) leaving them ill-equipped to emotionally deal with the herd.
People are dumb animals and if you’re trying to make money off them or desire to become popular with them, then you’re going to have to cater to them. The mob runs the show either with or without authority.
The purpose of the rules is not to “have rules” … it’s to have a well-functioning forum.
Carleas can determine what ‘well-functioning’ means for him.
If he wants a forum where people chat casually and exchange recipes, then one particular set of rules and enforcement will be better than another. If he wants a forum where people discuss philosophy, then another set of rules will be better. And discussing philosophy can mean many things … academic, serious but casual, practical, etc … each of which would be best served by specific rules and enforcement.
He has the power to set rules, choose mods, change posts, delete posts, ban members and ultimately shut down the forum.
The members can determine what ‘well-functioning’ means for them.
The actions and reactions of the members is producing feedback which alters the nature of the forum and moves it into some direction. The members are steering, individually and as small groups. They have the potentially huge power of numbers, if they align themselves. But they don’t have administrative powers to change posts, delete posts and to ban people or to pull the plug.
They have the power to leave and to “break the rules”.
The “one of three policies” is really a simplistic way of looking at the situation. The power and goals of the admin and the members are much more intertwined.
Good point, though given that it is a discussion forum, then the conclusion that a position sucks due to length is silly. It’s not a philosophy twitter forum. I get that some people may not be interested in reading longer posts and may also not want to respond with any detail given their technology, but they 1) have no basis for thinking long posts suck and 2) aren’t discussing philosophy, at least often, when they lob opinions and assertions as posts. There could be ways to make interesting points that are very restricted, and that would be great participation. But too often the shorter posts are dismissals of a whole post based on an opinion, not an argument, about one piece of it. We are not taking votes here.
Maybe your argument is why a number of forums seem to be going downhill. On the other hand there are forums where the level of philosophical debate is higher.