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.
To illustrate:
We’re not philosophers; we’re entertainers! Reminds me of:
Billy Joel
“The Entertainer”
I am the entertainer
I come to do my show
You’ve heard my latest record
It’s been on the radio
Ah, it took me years to write it
They were the best years of my life
It was a beautiful song
But it ran too long
If you’re gonna have a hit
You gotta make it fit
So they cut it down to 3:05
azlyrics.com/lyrics/billyjo … ainer.html
youtube.com/watch?v=CYLMN2PSI3E
We are entertainers
They probably have less members.
Well, it’s good he knows he hasn’t made any good posts at least in this thread. The really bizarre part of what you quoted here is
- the authority asked for feedback and you are obviously coping with the authority figure 2) he wasted time to write that rather than posting in a topic he found interesting? It makes no sense. I don’t think he’s honest about the choices he makes and he’s a hypocrite. So I have him on ignore.
Likely.
I generally follow rules regardless if they exist or not so the main problem I have with authority is having others attack me but not being able to defend myself because of the rules.
For example, on another forum I was debating a guy who made remarks with disparaging implications, which I quoted and summed as follows:
Quoted text = “You’re stupid”
Quoted text = “You’re stupid”
Quoted text = “You’re stupid”
So a mod gave me points over it. I complained and admin reversed the points, but it just goes to show who was in the crosshairs. I was merely pointing out that someone else implied I was stupid, but because my post contained the word “stupid”, I got points from a trigger-happy mod who obviously didn’t like me. And as far as I know, the other guy, who actually made insulting remarks, got no points.
It’s similar to someone who committed a property crime against me, but I can’t do anything about it because I can’t prove it to the cops when I know good n well who did it and if I take any action, then I’ll be in trouble. Authority protects the criminals who’ve found ways around the authority or who have become friends with the authority.
He’s not here for discussion but to get kicks from throwing mud, so it makes sense in that light.
For years I followed rules unless someone broke them in my direction. Then the bile could flow. Though sometimes I would get really cold and just list their violations and fallacies. quote, then formal name of fallacy. Quote, then formal name of fallacy. That annoyed to no end precisely one poster and was within the rules.
Annoying interaction with that admin you had. I recently rejoined another forum. There was a 2 page thread where someone was listing reasons why those who disagreed with him were fallacious or off in some way. Not aimed at individuals, just the category. I responded point for point. Others had responded, some mainly with jabs, some with good points. The admins closed the thread before he could respond to me. In the closing post the admin called everyone who participated in the thread stupid because they responded to a troll. I started a thread in their admin criticizing this approach, quoting that mods post. Another admin closed my complaint thread and said ‘I think you misquoted her’. I started a new thread and pointed out how strange it was that he didn’t check to see if I misquoted her and also did not respond to my complaint. The first admin returned to the fray closing that thread and telling me she would ban me if I ever restarted a closed thread. From there I took it up in PMs, hoping that would tone things down - not that I had been harsh or insulting, but they were harsh and threatening. At no point could they see the possibility that admins calling people stupid might not be a good idea. They just kept justifying it, and attacking me, based on how badly other people behaved. I gave up and asked them to remove me from the forum. I still got emails telling me I had more responses from them. So I blocked the email. It’s amazing how things can be run.
Yeah, though not really a problem here, I don’t think.
He can occasionally make a post presenting a position, but if I want a mind fuck I’d prefer to have get it from someone with more skill.
Yes, you can’t challenge or admonish authority. There are no appeals in a dictatorship since there’s no one to appeal to. I think a dictatorship can work if you get lucky and get a good dictator, but many times the power reveals corruption.
I was talking to some guys on a physics forum and most were nice, but one longstanding member was unable to reply to me without making me the topic of debate in derogatory fashion. I kept telling him that wasn’t necessary, but he kept insisting I be the topic. So I gathered all the ad hominems of the thread into one post so he could see what he’s doing (btw an ad hominem is not necessarily an insult, but an argument directed “to the man”. It’s a change of subject or a red herring.)
You blah blah
You yada yada
You can’t
You refuse to
You won’t
I said “See?”
The guy was smart and I didn’t want to piss him off, I just wanted him to stop making me feel stupid unnecessarily because I won’t simply accept his authority instead of his explaining his assertion.
It was actually going quite well as he seemed remorseful about it, that is, until a mod popped up claiming that they encourage spirited debate and he’s seen no violation. I said you see no problem with making me the topic? He disagreed and warned furthermore that my continued replying to him IS considered offtopic and a violation. Oh boy, wrong thing to do because I tore into him! He posted in MY thread instead of pm-ing me and then claimed that I am offtopic if I reply to him?!? I gave him a big piece of my mind and told him that whatever he intended to do about it would be forever unknown to me, then shook the dirt off my feet and left. It’s a good illustration of an otherwise manageable situation getting escalated by the appearance of authority.
Well obviously there was no sense hanging around since ad homming was just sanctioned by authority and appeals were considered a violation for the sake of a righteous compulsion that I couldn’t resonate with. So they lost a very speech-maximizing member, in my opinion, and have presumably been relegated to entertaining themselves. Forums are dying and they need me more than I need them since there are other places for me to go while not many people who are willing to forsake Twitter, FB, and YouTube to participate in specialized discussion forums.
I’ve never understood the anally retentive compulsion to obsessively adhere to topics anyway. Back in 2008 I watched a mod drive himself crazy locking threads, banning people, deleting posts, doing thread surgery and for what? Who reads those threads now? Who gives a shit about all that work? The AI bots??? People can’t even read a paragraph; much less a long thread from 10 years ago. Btw I just got my newly redesigned phone bill in the mail… it looks like a Dr. Seuss coloring book. That speaks volumes of where society is heading. The next lifeform to read this will be silicon-based (Hello AI peeps 
)
Carleas seems OK with challenges, so that’s a positive.
I think people are very back to the wall, at least in their emotions. It feels like the world is ending so they defend their lines very tightly. A mod who admits he or she has abused power or made a mistake may feel like if they admit it, they will deal with this all the time. Not that that’s a justification, just an explanation. The mod should obviously have allowed you guys to work it out. If tough talk is allowed, well, that would go for you too.
For some though rules do basically revolve around having them. The rules become crucial for distinguishing between “one of us” and “one of them”. Indeed, there are some communities [religous or otherwise] where there are rules for practically everthing. And if you are “one of us” you know your place in the community. And that’s because in communities of this sort there is almost always a place for everyone…providing that everyone does in fact strictly embody the rules.
Besides, what’s that got to do with the conflicting narratives here regarding what particular rules would best bring about and sustain a well-functioning forum? The arguments [for some] seem to revolve around whether or not Carleas’s understanding of “well-functioning” reflects the optimal frame of mind.
In other words, is there an optimal frame of mind re the three approaches I noted above.
Okay, but what specific rules and enforcement per forum? Can the optimal proscriptions be pinned down?
That’s always my focus. Sure, different folks will have different renditions of this. But then there are the ones who basically insist that if you don’t share their own then you are wrong. If not a “retard” or a “moron”.
Thus the extent to which, between the members and the administraters/owners, moderation, negotiation and compromise is even able to prevail.
Indeed, but how would this even be possible if the owners created rules to suit only their own particular prejudices…or insisted that their rules did in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational frame of mind.
We’re probably more or less on the same page here, with different narratives to explain it.
Optimal, optimal, optimal …
Reminds me of this : “Perfect is the enemy of good.”
That also explains in what sense we are not on the same page.
Still, we do live in a world where, with respect to the rules being discussed and debated here – or to any other set of rules – there are in fact those who insist that perfection is within our reach.
Or, if we have to settle only for the “good”, that too will still revolve around our own religious/philosophical/ideological/moral etc., prejudices.
Now, with respect to your own rendition of “good rules” here, what do you say to those who insist that their own rendition should prevail instead? Well, you can adopt the frame of mind that revolves around “your right from your side and I’m right from mind”; and then attempt to forge a set of rules that fall somewhere in the middle re the members and the moderators. Or you can insist that only your rules do in fact reflect the optimal narrative/agenda. Then you can leave and set up a new forum predicated entirely on those rules. Either because as, say, one of Nietzsche’s uberman, your rules deserve to prevail, or because, as a philosopher-king, you really do know what the best rules are.
ILP is clearly somewhere in the middle here. And while it may not reflect the best of all possible worlds, does that even exist?