Unfortunately, I have run out of time to get into an in-depth conversation about this, and quite frankly it is just starting to get boring. I have done my best to highlight some of the things that are obvious that people can not see and that is all I can do - in highlighting anything that I have, I did not bother to be specific in many cases - my attempt was to paint a broader picture - people also get to see what some people think of them - what they look like to other people. Now clearly I can not speak for everyone because I have no idea what anyone really thinks except for those with who I frequently engage in communications with but you can be assured that at times people do think negatively of each other.
I am satisfied with my intended message and I am happy to move on now. I have people here with who I communicate at a rate that keeps me satisfied. As for those who seem like the picture I have presented, well I don’t have as much time for them - only time will tell though because I can not point the finger at any one person right now and say, hey you look like the negative picture I have painted.
I hope everyone does get what they want.
People do actually stop talking to each other if they do not like each other. People will not take part in threads that do not interest them.
People find their cliques and the world goes on.
As a user of ILP, I have taken part in this thread only because I think ILP is a pretty awesome place and over the last 4 years that I have been a member, I have had many fun times and even made a best friend, may he rest in peace. I guess I am one of the lucky ones, one of the lucky members because the company that I have kept and the company that I choose to continue keeping have not caused me any problems or other such grief.
I agree that the title of this forum (“I Love Philosophy”) suggests that the content of this website should be related to philosophy. I also agree that, in the same exact way, this page that encode_decode linked to describes what kind of place they want to create and maintain (or at the very least, what kind of forum they wanted back in 2009.) However, none of these things explain why they want these things in the first place (: What exactly are they trying to achieve by running a forum that is “dedicated to the discussion of philosophy”, that “puts no limitations on the ideas that can be expressed, or the questions that can be asked”, and that “[is] a community first […] [that] must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness”? The answer to THAT question is what I meant when I spoke of the purpose of this forum.
In any case, if this forum is supposed to be a community that must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness, why is Polish Youth still active on the forum and why is WW_III_ANGRY allowed to express his desire to kill other forum members? Dan is a global moderator, he knows who Polish Youth is, he read his posts and he allegedly knows that Polish Youth is normal. Yet, he appears to have taken no action against him. It seems that what they wrote back in 2009 as well as in 2011 no longer applies.
Just for the record, iambiguous always makes it clear that his reaction to others here can never be more than a subjunctive assessment rooted in dasein and subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.
And he avoids like the plague any discussion and debate with those he suspects of having a “condition”. He does not want to be the one who pushes them over the edge.
It makes no sense at all, his “condition” mentality is him trying to shelter himself from a worthy debate partner.
Iambiguous, I’m crazy as fuck. No problem with that. But it’s a problem for your intellectual capacity and ego. “How can a man who as crazy as fuck beat me in a debate?” Serious ego hit isn’t it. And let’s be honest here… you know I’d crush you in that debate.
I would say that the solution is to tell him that his behavior (calling other people “kids” and saying they are “chickenshit”) is considered unacceptable. If he ignores that and continues insulting other people, that should be a reason enough to restrict his posting privileges until he addresses the issue.
And I don’t think that debates should be competitive where winners and losers are declared. They should merely be a way for people to influence each other in a way that is not deceptive.
Magnus, since I have seen you make some good points…
…I am interested in your thoughts on the OP(the original post aka the first post) in the following thread:
I ask you because I don’t see any indicators that anybody else is interested in the actual moderation of ILP. My thoughts are that the title of the thread seems misleading and that the post which is the first post does not really state any position or claim.
Posting Content
1.1The first post in a new thread on Philosophy should contain some form of philosophical thesis for discussion. Mods may suggest moving a post that looks to be more suited to another forum.
and on the same page you will also find the following rule:
1.3 New posts advertising a blog, directing the reader to a book or a video and then asking for discussion, urging people to take online polls outside ILP, etc… will be moved to Mundane Babble. If the subject is worth discussion, write a precis in the body of the post and provide a link at the end.
Based on these rules it would appear that the thread I have linked to does not belong in the Philosophy category of ILP. The mentioned thread is also quite old and it seems that it has slipped under the radar all these years. Interestingly enough is the vast amount of responses that it received anyway.
While I do approve of a little creative license when making an OP it still has to actually offer people something to sink their teeth into based on some sort of position that can be discussed without having to leave the website and read a book to see what the position would be. After all, this is not a book club or specifically a book discussion club.
Yes, the title of the thread is misleading (the thread should have been called “Book: Decline and Fall of all Evil”) and the original post presents no thesis (since it’s a thread dedicated to exploring a book.) And yes, as you note, that’s against the rules (the written ones, at least.)
Personally, if you ask me, I’d have a rule that says that the opening post of every thread must be an argument. Not a book, not a link to a blog, not an external link of any kind, not even a mere statement of philosophical position. It must be an actual argument for other people to evaluate. And it must be a single, concisely written, argument. Links to books, blogs, videos and other external content should be housed in a different section of the forum (say “Philosophical Works”) if at all. And I also think that bloggers (i.e. people who do not merely link to their work but actually post it on this forum) should be treated the same way. Peter Kropotkin is an example. He’s largely a blogger.
I am glad you elaborated on your points regarding purpose Magnus. This makes more sense now.
I started typing a bunch of stuff but I had to stop and shorten it because it was getting out of hand. So I am just going to post this and see what you or anyone else thinks. My apologies in advance if I have not provided enough information to make my intent clear.
I believe a part of this can be reflected in you or me or anyone else asking ourselves why we came to a philosophy forum in the first place. I have no doubt that over time the why would have changed for you or me or anyone else. Being able to identify our current motivations in life including why we are still here at ILP would be illuminating. Can you see what I mean here? I have to ask because I am not tackling the question of Carleas or ILP here. But an answer to this could help Carleas refine the purpose.
I know this is not a direct exchange focused on what you are saying - I colored the things that came across as most important to address.
So I submit only part of what I have written for you to consider.
I am not sure I understand this. It seems like you’re saying that the answer to the question that is “What’s the purpose of ILP?” can be found by asking “What’s the reason we’re visiting ILP?”
The “why?” did not and does not change for me. And I am sure this holds true for many other people too.
You are assuming that I am (and perhaps that we all are) addicted to ILP.
Unless there is something I am not seeing, someone like Magnus seems to be a sufficient choice for moderator.
It would appear that he would not let anyone get away with anything even if they were his friends. I don’t know, I could be wrong.
If I may make a suggestion, having someone that is trusted or respected to act as a moderator may require some minor revision.
The reasons are as follows:
From my observation, there is not an overabundance of respect getting around on this forum at the moment.
The current mood in many regions of the world does not lend itself well to trust.
While there are certain members that respect each other - some of those who would approve of certain recommendations are not likely to take part in this discussion and therefore their approvals would go unheard.
What we/you need and it has already been suggested in this discussion(not in so many words), is someone or more than one person that is capable of remaining neutral given any argument to moderate it. Mods need to clean the forum up a little when the need arises and as such: some threads need to be moved, some people need to be warned and others at times will need to be banned. I know everyone is aware of the painful truths and I am sure everyone would be happier with someone or more than one person who will take the action that is required and remain neutral where it is needed to ensure the peaceful, and most importantly, proper operation of ILP.
It may even end up being the case that someone or persons will need to be selected by you alone Carleas.
This is of course dependent on those selected, being happy to moderate.
Oh shoot, I meant motivations, not addictions - I did not catch that.
…and nope, I am not assuming anything Magnus but thanks for taking the time to answer.
It may be difficult to fully address what you are saying about purpose if Carleas does not know why the place was created, to begin with. I am not entirely convinced that we all need to know - just going with his current suggestion of purpose seems like it would suffice to me. It is possible that you are overthinking it.
I am all out of ideas - it seems like everything has been covered
I blame lack of sleep for my impairment but I forgot to add this to the top of my last post.
Magnus, the contraption I presented tells me that you are able to go into the healthy mental territory required to give fair assessments on situations. I was not too sure as some of your points throughout this thread while right on the mark were very rigid. I am just making sure you are leaving enough room for the things that are not always obvious. Your responses are right on the mark with the exception of the last one which I take full responsibility for and I have updated my post to reflect that as well as commented under the quote to show that I am aware of the brainfart.
It is interesting that your reason for coming here has never changed - mine has changed a little over time but is mostly the same.
Lastly, I read the rules to make an estimate of whether the forum might be a good fit for me when I first arrived.
There are benefits to revealing what the purpose of one’s forum is. But there are also costs. The benefits include things such as making it easier for others to influence you in a positive way e.g. by making you realize that there exists a better set of rules for your forum. The costs, on the other hand, mostly revolve around the amount of time you have to spend becoming conscious of what you really want. I believe the former far outweighs the latter.
The world in which everyone agrees with everyone else is nowhere in sight, so one can expect that for the foreseeable future there will be people who disagree with how things are run. That said, there must be a way to deal with such people. The simplest way to do so is to ignore them but I am not sure that’s the best way to go – at least not as a long-term strategy. My idea is to listen to what they have to say but to do so at your own pace (which should be negotiable but only up to a point.) If someone disagrees with the way a forum is run, they should be allowed to present their case; and those running the forum, they should be allowed to determine and communicate how much time they need to understand and respond to the complaints. I think the interaction between those who run things and those who use things should be a bit warmer than it currently is. (And to ensure that, I believe, forums must be sufficiently small.)
(I am of the strong opinion that many such interactions would eventually lead to the question of the purpose of the forum. As many people try to influence the owners, they slowly realize that a lot of failed and unnecessary attempts are due to the fact that they don’t know – and are thus forced to presume – what those running the forum want.)
In other words, if you disagree with the way I think forums should be moderatored, you can discuss it with me.
Yes Magnus, this is a balanced viewpoint that you are presenting here.
A sufficiently small and sufficiently warm forum with the mods and users in understanding of each other’s respective positions is the around about way I would sum it up.
I agree. As long as it remains a two-way street is what is important to me in this case.
The rest is pretty simple at its heart - just one example: we just need to get the noxious comments(you know, the obviously unnecessary ones) out of the threads - there is a rant house for that.
Some expression is not fitting of the topic.
What is considered polite in one culture is not always considered polite in another culture.
A level of tolerance seems to be more important than politeness no matter where you go on the internet.
There is a lot more going on than just this, however, if we are going to be realistic about it. Realism is not humanity’s greatest strength at the moment.
It is pretty common to see people with one set of beliefs not be tolerant of other people with a different set of beliefs.
Discussion and debate seem like two very simple ideas on the surface but people never fail to complicate things more than they need to.