Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

It is right that I recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach. But one requirement is that the moderator is capable of practicing it rightly. If so, then the moderator can ban early and often. Ad homs, insults, off topic should lead to ban or even permaban, but again: the moderator must be capable of practicing it rightly.

I like to typically use a black mark system, first time usually always being a warning, maybe even a second warning, then a suspension from posting but threads still viewable perhaps, then if they come back and keep on going then a ban is probably good.

Or just simply put a 1-5 mark system 5 marks is perm ban. Maybe more marks depending.

Howsoever. … Trolls must be punished. :sunglasses:

Think of John Wayne:


I can agree with that.

ILP revolt.

It would be the first one.


So is the problem is that we have two too many marks?

Or, if it’s that there’s no permanent ban at the end, the reality is that there’s no such thing as a permanent ban on the internet. We could say ‘permanent’, but that just means that the user name is dead, not that the poster is banished in practice.

I can agree with Artimas’ suggestions concerning the mark system, but, for me, the mark system is not the main aspect of handling the problem. The main aspect of handling the problem are the administrator(s) and moderators, especially their personality and motivation. Therefore I mentioned the good example given by Uccisore.

I am convinced that the number of the trolls will soon lower after the trolls will have realized their absolutely indisputable undesirability.

That’s good that there is a mark system, they serve the most justice from what I can tell. The part where we have a problem is having your system better enforced i’d say. Only a few times have people been banned or warned. There are quite a few times where ad hom has happened and no system was enforced.

The mods aren’t bad, the only one I got in an argument with was Ucc really, but I agree with his assertiveness. We just need more assertion behind the system is all. Step 1: identity the troll/flame baiter. Step 2: warn/ban the troll/ flame baiter. Step 3: continue the process, the more marks the harsher the justice.

Perm banning is near impossible due to proxies, ip changes, etc. Range bans are good, but this is also bad due to limiting the forum population by what places you ban and people being banned who didn’t do anything, it raises the chance of new users not knowing we even exist.

Yes, of course, but it already exists, and it is not the main issue. The main issue are the administration and moderation - without them all mark systems are useless.

Hi Carleas. I wanted to bring to your attention a matter that has arisen with Uccisore. It seems he has been baiting and provoking, through mild trolling in numerous responses to me. I didnt instigate this and it is continuing in other threads. So I’m concerned that he, as a moderator, is essentially breaking the rules of the forum. One example being here, where he basically accuses me of bigotry and prejudice - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187609#p2597449

He’s often putting words in my mouth and assuming things that I didn’t state here. because he takes things out of context and seems to be reading what he wants to read, one example here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=190064&start=25#p2595841

Here he quotes me out of context and ignores the reasoning I gave in matters that he attempts to argue against, while ignoring the reasoning I had already gave…

Now it seems like its repeated behavior of him trolling me, but only on threads that have a similar theme. I already had reported another one of his replies to me, but Only_Humean basically didn’t see the need to “sanction” Uccisore because of his pronouncement. Which was accusatory. So he often has been misquoting me out of context, ignoring my reasons and interjecting assumptions based on his preconceived notion of me and what my motives are it seems. I don’t know why exactly, but it seems he has a big beef with New Atheists and has labeled me one. I’m not very aware of what type of people “New Atheists” are, or what he perceives them to be, but I have heard a lot of negativity about them and he seems to be one of those people that may understand it better than I and has some vendetta to crush whatever he suspects is New Atheist hogwash, or whatever. But I have been providing a consistent, related philosophy of mine within the forum the past month or so - and he has been providing rather trollish remarks instead of reasoning. I mean, for a regular member to do that would probably fly, but when a mod does I’m concerned. Is that a double standard of mine? Perhaps, but I would expect mods to enforce and abide by the rules moreso. Yes Carleas you do seem to let things slide. I think Humean does a great job of moving threads to where they belong… I don’t see much from Uccisore myself. I could provide some examples of what I suspect is trolling from Uccisore to me, if wished. But I really think he’s just trying to smear my philosophy because he doesn’t like it. Not because I’m not providing reason…

I don’t mind people disagreeing, and Uccisores methods of most others comes across to me as trolling. I haven’t gotten that from any other poster here that disagreed with me on any thread. Only him thus far. So I think he is biased of course and being unreasonable in certain threads, but not in others. He seems to quick to assume things, insult, and project superiority… which by projection it seems he accuses me of thinking I’m superior, when its really him who he thinks is superior. As a mod, I find it very unbecoming for him. He likes to hold his misunderstandings of me and carry them to other threads and insult. I do usually, not always, return somewhat in kind. So I’m not always taking the high road myself. But nonetheless I find him to be instigating, baiting, and attempting slander on me with downright accusations and some subtle accusations, and using smear tactics with quoting me out of context. So, I don’t think highly of this moderation. Humean, Yes. Everyone else is doing a fine job from my vantage, at least.

I actually don’t have much of a problem with ‘ad hom’ as long as it’s in a post that’s furthering the discussion and isn’t being reported as harassment. If somebody is saying “Your argument is incorrect because A, B, C, D, E…asshole” and the person they are writing too isn’t reporting them, I just figure they’re both adults and that’s sometimes how adults talk. I’d much rather see a mean, insult ridden, and yet on-topic discussion than somebody posting innocent pictures of fluffy kittens everywhere instead of a discussion.

Part of the reason for this is that I find when moderation is strict about insults, the result is that people just more clever about insulting people. I also find that the people who are the best at cleverly insulting others are oftentimes the least desirable people to discuss philosophy with. I’ve seen forums lose good people to banning because those people weren’t interested in playing coy with somebody that was calling them a motherfucker in a way that technically wasn’t against the rules.

I admit this is a big difference between me and how other people in other parts of the internet moderate things.

Yeah, that sounds right.

This is the kind of thing that pushes me towards articulable standards: when something seems clearly true to us, someone disagreeing seems like they must be trolling: how else could they not see? But people actually disagree, and they perceive each other as trolls, and that’s OK.

But what it seems to me like you’re alleging is just that Uccisore is making bad arguments, and ‘bad arguments’ can’t be subject to a blanket prohibition in any reasonable articulable standard of moderator intervention.

Well bad arguments + insults

Philosophy forum rules:

Show courtesy to other posters at all times: no flaming. Insulting, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards others will result in a warning.
2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued.

So no, I welcome criticism and disagreement - it’s a manner in which it occurs that I think is unbecoming particularly for a mod

I called you a bigot who was prejudiced against religion because you’re a bigot who’s prejudice against religion, and you made that startlingly obvious in a thread you created a subject of which was the bigotry and prejudice of religious people. So not only is it true, but it wasn’t off-topic for the subject you created, and, might I add, I’m not even the first person to call you an anti-religious bigot; somebody else had the same observation a few days prior in the same section of the forums.

What that has to do with my moderation, I am unsure. It’s not like a banned you or warned you for being a bigot.

So here we go - bigot can be a very harsh word. I don’t even know what thread I created that you claim was a thread of bigotry and prejudice of religious people as opposed. Providing a better way and providing reasons for flaws of religion isn’t bigotry or prejudice. You make those accusations while ignoring the reasoning I gave that showed why religion isn’t “good” and how going off of a knowledge based frame of reference as opposed to belief based is good. I provided reasons, you called it bigotry and prejudice, ignoring the reasons. Not cool

Then don’t use it. You brought it up as an accusation against religious people. I just pointed out you fell prey to the characterization. If you weren’t preoccupied with condemning the bigotry and prejudice of people with a different ideology than you, it never would have come up. God knows I’m not the guy who goes around sniffling about other people’s ‘prejudice’.