Why should anyone tolerate your behavior? What’s the benefit of doing so?
If you think that there are people on this forum who act in a way that is harmful to others, I suggest presenting a case with a cool head. If you’re not going to do so, if you are not going to cooperate with others, why should anyone tolerate you?
You are welcome to present your case against those “pieces of shit”.
My behavior is merely the intolerance of theirs in so much as I wouldn’t “behave” any way if it wasn’t for their presence here. That can be provided with a myriad of posts from 2013 - 2018 or so until I realized that this sick ilk has infested a place that I used to discuss philosophy and actually learn from others.
Do not let the words I use lead you to assume that am I not of a cool head.
the fact that anyone is still acting like that was a death threat is completely ludicrous.
Can non philosophical posts be sent/redirected out of serious threads by linking them to a catch all thread in Non philosophical chat?
Posts that threaten or spam insults get sent/redirected to a Rant House catch all thread.
Would setting up a system to relocate irrelevant and/or harmful junk posts be adequate moderation?
Perhaps I have snapped…
If what is going on around here comes back to what I call the mini-me problem then the forum does indeed have some issues. Fanatical behaviors of attempted conversions I do have a big problem with. NO, I do not want to join a cult. There have been many times I have come across these slimy zealots - my answer today is the same as it has always been and the same as it will always be. NO…NO…NO - this is like the picture of the drug pusher and again I say NO. It is despicable behavior and will receive much of my contempt.
Respect is a slippery word in my opinion. On top of that, I am not going to pretend that I know the full story of what on earth is going on around here. Managing my own life outside this place is tough enough but I don’t live under a rock either(as much as I would like to sometimes). There are a lot of assumptions I have to make and I do not have time to read every thread properly so I just quickly look at what I can to build some kind of picture. My perception is that there seem to be two sides and those two sides throw the word fascist at each other but how can we have two fascist sides at war? Maybe there can but it does not compute with me - this year at least.
Maniac on the other hand is a word I can work with. Over the last five years, I have been witness to some really peculiar and messed up…um…shit, I guess you could call it. A gigantic conspiracy that I have never seen the likes of before…this is a worrying trend…to think that some of the people I know who have bought into this fear-mongering used to be able to think for themselves. Not only do these people buy into this but then they start to try and spread it(back to the mini-me problem) similar to how a disease spreads(someone pass me the antibiotics). How can I respect that? Well, I simply don’t. In the case that respect stands for holding another in high regard, I don’t think I have ever used the word like that. I have gotten used to this idea of respect being my ability to humor ideas for a time - letting people have their time to speak through what I was led to believe is their right to do so.
I am happy to think about anything that anyone says to me, agree and disagree, this is all part of it. I will always vote for the side I think is the better of two evils because I don’t trust anyone…there is plenty of reasons to have trust issues in the modern world. JUSTIFIED!!! Fanatics on the other hand can bugger off - I will happily stand on my own two feet thanks. Yeah, don’t be like me. Think for yourself.
I believe some people are too stupid to understand what think for yourself means - it does not mean that there is this supermarket you go to where you can buy parts to build your persona - oh, look at me, look at me, I am different, I am special, hahaha. Sniffing each other’s butts like dogs do to get information >> Oh she likes this type of music and despite the fact that it sounds good I must deprive myself of it so that I can be different. Then something snaps in their brain and instead of wanting to be “themselves” anymore they have to start the disgusting conversion. It is perverse.
Heads up: This is not a response to Carleas - these are my unwanted opinions. Have at it.
While the idea of moderation is simple at its core it seems the implementation of it is not so clear cut.
Is this because we brought baggage into the discussion? Baggage from other discussions?
Three central questions remain unresolved at this point. Why is this? Surely there is only one answer and that is those who want moderation are more interested in themselves and what they have to say than getting what they asked for to begin with. No real points have been proven at this stage and therefore we have made no significant progress(perhaps this word right here is the problem). I see energy expenditure from those who were happy with the way things were which leads to the conclusion that this side is interested enough to discuss the matter.
So far we have not seen a good example. Nominate and give your reason for the nomination. Finally, does the nominee want to moderate?
Those that want the moderation need to show that they are worthy of being considered among the best users. To do this you need to consider what is best for the forum instead of what is best for yourself << ultimately these are not always the same things.
Stop, reflect, modify(if needed)(rinse and repeat if needed)…then post. Question to ask oneself: Is what I am about to post clear? I say this because if we are to start moving down the more strict path then something will have to be sacrificed - there is always sacrifice in a rigid system.
I think that is the most significant thing said so far - for 2 reasons -
Years ago I watched many discussion boards get canceled and entirely erased due to what they allowed to be said in public (often the owners not even aware of actually how or why it happened). America and the entire West is closing in on a time when all public speech is to be politically/socially controlled - Twitter, Facebook, Google, Youtube - all being current examples. There is still a fight for some degree of freedom of speech, but it appears at this point to be a losing battle - the odds favor the global propagandists - social manipulators - that is where the money and power is.
So Carleas must make a decision (regardless of what he might have to announce) as to whether to take up the fight for free speech (political, religious, science, social, philosophical…) and probably lose (possibly much more than just the board) or go along to get along with the current front runner globalist authoritarians.
I wouldn’t want to have to make that decision although it is easy to kibitz those who do.
Absolute nonsense. You do realize that the forum already has a stated purpose right? This just sounds like more noise to me…
This is only about moderation…derailing topics with nonsense is one of the things that was petitioned against.
Start a different topic calling for a new purpose for ILP - this is just getting out of hand.
For reference, copying the current statement of purpose here:
encode_decode provided a pithier version:
In my opinion that would be better as a second paragraph, a start at unpacking the purpose into a plan of action. While more to the point than the original, it still gets way too into the weeds of how the purpose will be achieved. The statement of purpose should be downright spartan:
That’s definitely a first draft, but I think it’s closer to the kind of purpose Magnus intended. And it starts to get at the expanded version provided in e_d’s paragraph.
I don’t know that this points a clear way forward on moderation, but I’d be curious if it fits others’ impressions of what we’re all doing here.
I’ve seen a lot of shit over the years.
Here’s my take on moderation.
1.) Spamming is unacceptable. Like if someone makes 100 threads in a row at once saying the same exact shit… you’re done. Fuck you. You’re done. I’ve actually seen this before! It’s rare, but I’ve seen it.
2.) someone using the quote function to type shit you never said, and then respond to it as if you actually made that message yourself and they’re just replying to it. Seen it before! Lol! You’re done.
3.) cherry picking. See it all the time. As a moderator when there’s a cherry picking dispute I’d seriously intercede and say “why the fuck do you refuse to address the most salient point of that post?” What’s wrong with you.
You know… Carleas used to get on me about being angry with posters for refusing to debate me in the formal debate forum. He’d say “that’s their right, stop abusing them in that way, they don’t have to formally debate you dude” (in so many words)
I’ve thought a lot about this over the years…
I think formal debates are a no brainer if you want to defend yourself. I think people who don’t do it are cowards (to this day!)
Sure, we all have our personalities.
I want to make this VERY clear. If you’re too scared to formally debate me in shit you’ve trolled for years on ILP… fuck you.
You know why I say that? You should believe to the death that what you’re saying matters. And if you’re proven wrong? All the better. THAT’S a philosophy forum.
“ILP’s purpose is to provide an open forum for the discussion of all ideas, with the goal of improving thinking, sharing insights, and finding truth.”
This would likely slay half the members here alone if fully implemented.
Some people already think they are having formal debates in regular threads
I understand that 110%. The beauty of the formal debate section is that it’s elevated to a stature (so few of them), that it’s like the true ILP. If you really want a glimpse of ILP as a whole, read the formal debates. They’re there for a reason. If topics that are most important to ILP don’t go there… ILP is not well representing what it is in blocks of time about its posters.
While I really like what Carleas posted, even though it is off-topic, the thing that worries me is the improving thinking part. How do you help people improve their thinking when their mind is so full of the crap that they are only here to push onto others? This is their only intention. Their mind is completely shut off to others. They have absolutely no intention of exchanging ideas or learning anything that might go against their own beliefs. I don’t know about anyone else but I am not here to offer rehabilitation services to conspiracy theory addicts and pushers as an example.
Yes, sharing should be changed to exchanging.
Discussion should be a reciprocal activity. We are here to communicate with each other, not at each other.
And yes, if rules are based on purpose and moderation is strictly enforced then I can count at least two members that would have to be removed straight off the bat - at least one of these members called for the renewed moderation.
…or…people could just appreciate what we already have, chill out and get back to doing stuff…
another solution for those who just don’t get it is to just stop communicating with anyone who disagrees with you
this way your feelings don’t get hurt
failing all of this, just implement the ultimate solution - become a hermit and never communicate with anyone ever again
anyway, good luck everyone and best of luck getting everything sorted out
I have finished illustrating and creatively exaggerating my points
I will now go back to hanging out with the lowly humans
Yeah, I know. I was not disagreeing with you - perhaps I should rephrase what I said: Some people believe they are having formal debates in regular threads. Perhaps they believe they are impressing someone with all the rot that they talk about. It is not always obvious that there is more to someone’s statement than what meets the eye. Either way, want a debate? Formalize it, otherwise back to the discussion, wouldn’t you say?
My apologies for the ambiguity.
Unnecessary repetition of threads and posts, if done too many times, is not a desirable thing. Also, writing many short posts (such as one-liners) in succession (something Pezer is guilty of) is not desirable either. It all indicates that the writer has no respect for the readers (and that he himself is not much of a reader.) I am not saying people should be warned (verbally, of course) when they are caught doing such things, but if they do it too many times, I think they should be. Anything off-topic, i.e. that distracts from the purpose of the thread, should also be sanctioned. Ad homs fall into this group because an ad hom is a diversion to a different topic – that of what qualities are possessed by one or more participants in the thread. “You are stupid” might not exactly be an ad hom but the essence is the same. “You are wrong” is a bit better, because it’s criticizing one part of that person’s intelligence and not the whole of it, but it still suffers from the fact that it addresses the person instead of the argument. “This statement is wrong” is a good way to do it and “I disagree with this statement” is the best way to do it. The latter is a better approach because it does not eliminate the subjective component.
That’s not a desirable thing either.
Each post should consist of one or more arguments and no more than that. In fact, I would say that it is better when posts consist of no more than one argument but perhaps there are situations when this is not the best way to go. The manner in which arguments are presented matters but for the sake of simplicity let’s disregard that for now and focus on what matters the most – that each post should consist of a number of arguments. When presented with such a post, your task is to declare whether or not you disagree with its arguments, and if possible, to present a counter-argument against what you disagree with. What could that possibly entail? Well, since the number of ways any given argument can be wrong is limited – the fault is either in the premises or it’s in the logic used to derive the conclusion frmo the premises – an acceptable though not necessarily correct response would be to attack one or more of its premises, its logic or both. There is thus no room for other people to attack a point that is not salient UNLESS it was unnecessarily stated. In other words, people attack unimportant points because they were unnecessarily stated. Don’t state them and you solve the problem. At the same time, if someone states something unimportant, others should recognize it, point it out and leave it at that.
I think Carleas is right. One should not force others to act against their will. If they do not want to participate, cool, let them not participate.
I agree.
Discussing moderation on this forum is like discussing a vacuum. It might suck you in, but there is not much to discuss.
Bring it on!!
Yes, it would seem that way, wouldn’t it? Discussing anything on any forum when people persistently go off-topic is pretty much the same thing.
It would seem like a discussion has taken place but once you remove the fluff, not much has really been stated.
:-"
You seem to be placing way too much emphasis on the need to expose oneself to the ugliness of the world in order to learn how to endure it when it’s necessary to do so. I can understand that need. The problem is there are other needs too.
A number of people gather together to accomplish a task. If Johnny decides (intentionally or unintentionally) to make it difficult for them, they would do well to do something about him. If you’re going to say certain things on this forum that significantly decrease the likelihood of its purpose being fulfilled, then the problem lays with you – whether or not you offended someone else is not particularly relevant.
You are trying to make it look as if people are complaining merely because they can’t stand other people saying nasty things. It does not occur to you that they are complaining because they find little to no value in a forum that is populated by ugly creatures. You also seem to think that they all respond with fear and anxiety. And though it might be the case that some do, I am sure there are many people who respond with no more than boredom. Mr R seems to be responding the same way, the only difference being that he’s doing nothing about it.
There are people who have mastered the art of tolerating the ugly and what they want to do now is to have fruitful conversations on various topics. They don’t want to read pages and pages of people insulting each other. They have no need for cheap entertainment in the form of reality TV drama. They find it extremely boring.
The leadership either wants to ensure that this place generates interesting discussions or it does not; and if it does, it either knows how to do it or it does not. Without proper restrictions in place, you can’t ensure such a thing. “Ignore” button won’t do it. Thick skin won’t do it.