A Helpful Compilation of Ten (or So) of the Things That Wi

…Of the Things that Will Improve the Site.

#1. Why is the character count so restrictive in the title box? …It doesn’t matter why, there’s no good reason for it. Double it’s length, at least.

#2. It’s about time that this thread was dealt with: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=176489. It should be clear why to anyone who has followed that thread.

#3. Whose bright idea was “The Academy” forum? It is an absolutely terrible idea, and won’t work. But here’s a good intention: To improve the content of the site. What that forum does is require that the content be long, properly cited, properly spaced, and sparsely populated. Is that your idea of what “good content” should be? …Pinch yourselves my friends.

You’ve driven a car. Therefore, you know what a good car drives like—you know what it’s like when it works. You don’t need to be a mechanic to know what a car should be like. The same goes for philosophy. You’ve read philosophy. You know what it’s like when it works. “The Academy” thread would have us think that good philosophy is when the car is a certain size, a certain length, a certain color. That’s just wrong. Good philosophy is what carries you further toward an answer to a philosophical question, or at least backwards away from some dead end. You’ve read philosophy. You know what it’s like. So, use your judgement and simply remove bad content to mundane babble or rant house. What’s left will be what works. All this requires is a bare minimum of competency on the moderator’s part in the philosophy section. Only_Humean has a bare minimum of competency, and will be fine. It’ll be improved when he removes bad philosophy, and not just non-philosophy.

You’re not sure what bad philosophy is, or worried you might miss it? —It’s like not being sure whether a car without a wheel or tires will work, or whether you might not like to drive it.

Here’s a few examples:
A. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=179751

  • The thread selling playing cards. --That’s just not philosophy. Easy case.
    B. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178866
  • The thread about legalizing heroin. Great topic, but making the topic something like “Descartes” doesn’t make it good philosophy. Just read the guys philosophizing, and you’ll see that it’s bad philosophy… he doesn’t even read the objections to him.

#4. Delete the Psychology, Religion, Government, and Technology/Math forums. Delete them, or else add forums for Archaeology, History, Foreign Languages… and then change the name of the website to “I Love Any-Fucking-Thing”. Obviously keep the mundane babble and rant houses----those are style forums, rather than content ones.

I will add more suggestions in the coming months.

I don’t see a problem with this at all, although I don’t know how to do it myself. Mind you, Chekhov said “conciseness is the sister of talent”, perhaps we should be discouraging waffle? :slight_smile:

I don’t think going into that in a new thread will be any more productive than continuing the discussion in the old thread, and may end up obfuscating other points you’d like to raise. But this is your thread, your call.

It was raised on this forum, here. There was (and seemingly still is) a general feeling that something can be done to improve ILP’s quality. Personally, I share your scepticism, for the same reasons that similar ideas in the past haven’t worked and none of the people militating for the forum have yet seen fit to contribute. But it was agreed that we could give it a(nother) chance.

I agree that it’s a good thing that there are people who want to improve the site, and think threads like this are always a good idea. Thank you for starting one.

Firstly, thank you for your ebullient praise :slight_smile:

I see where you’re coming from. Really. On the other hand, as a mod I don’t want to exclude cars that other people might want to drive just because I don’t. There are some posters whose philosophising really doesn’t interest me, whose philosophies seem fundamentally flawed and/or whom I have no real urge to engage in discussion with. But they have discussions with others who I do find interesting, and who find them interesting.

Given that participation in threads is voluntary, I’d rather err on the side of inclusiveness than turn things into ILoveOnlyHumean’sSortOfPhilosophy.com, and accept that many things that various people consider to be background noise will rise. But I’m definitely open to concrete suggestions to identify undesirable philosophy.

Playing cards has been moved; the latter thread has several side-discussions, regardless of ones opinion of the OP. There will always be threads in the grey areas between Philosophy and MB/Rant, wherever you make the split. But if a lot of people want a stricter split, I’m prepared to make that.

I’d be tempted to keep them, if only because otherwise everything ends up in the Philosophy forum. Differentiating the areas makes it easier to browse, and you tend to get different crowds in each forum with a few posters who post across several. Science is in any case an offshoot of philosophy, Aristotle would have you believe that Politics is the pinnacle of ethics, religion and maths are traditionally closely linked too. Maybe History and Linguistics deserve representation on this basis too.

This is the search for how can to be done:

These two threads have successful solutions:
phpbb.com/community/viewtopi … &t=2111996
phpbb.com/community/viewtopi … 2&t=999995