Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

(1) My first (and main!) question was and is:
[list][list][list][list][list][list][list][size=114]Why can some ILP members not even respect philosophical themes?[/size][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]
(2) My second (and not main) question was and is:
[list][list][list][list][list][list][list][size=114]Why do ILP moderators acept or even respect ILP members who do not even respect philosophical themes?[/size] [/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

(1) Those who are not able to respect philosophical themes derail threads, subforums, and the whole philosophical forum of a board named “I Love philosophy” (“ILP”).
(2) Moderators are those who should prevent other ILP members from derailing threads, subforums, and the philosophical forum of a board named “I Love philosophy” (“ILP”).

I have since cleaned up a couple of threads on the R&S board… without being too intrusive I hope, and I will continue to visit the board throughout each day, so apologies for forgetting to do so of late.

Magsj, would you consider notifying people if their posts get deleted? I know you deleted a couple of mine, but I dont know which ones.

Other than that I am certainly satisfied with the mods. My favorites are Uccisore and Carleas, the latter because of his undeniable commitment which makes this community as reliable and stable as it is.

The posts I delete are only those with off-topic bickering for content, so please be assured that all your posts are otherwise safe.

Why is Dan~ no practising moderator anymore?

Is the word “woman” misogynistic?


It’s misogynstic to even suggest that the word woman is misogynstic… unless you’re a woman :stuck_out_tongue:

Isn’t it interesting how on this site you can troll and basically post whatever you want to regardless of what the topic is, but god forbid you call somebody a name.

I mean, you can be the most obvious troll ever and you get a free pass unless you directly insult people. You can uncover the secret about the origin of reality itself but woe unto you if you call somebody a name, even if it is an accurate description of that somebody… just something I dislike about the moderation here.

Four questions, please, Arbiter (b.t.w.: the spelling of the German “Arbeiter” which means “worker” is very similar to the English “arbiter” - if “arbiter” did not lack the “e”, then it would be even the same spelling :slight_smile: ):

  1. Is your disliking about the ILP moderation strong enough to answer the question of this thread with “no”?
  2. May I ask you whether you also answered the question of this thread by voting?
  3. If I may ask you: Did you vote?
  4. And if you voted: Did you vote “no”?

I didn’t vote.

Other complaints I have is that half the mods are almost never here, and only Ucc ever actually participates in discussions.
Some good things are that the other half of mods are active on an almost daily basis and do their job properly.

I just dislike the overall style of moderation I described in my post above, where a person can blatantly troll and spew non-philosophy but get away with it, but one insult and everybody gets all jumpy. That makes me lean slightly towards no, but I still don’t feel inclined to vote.


Yes, Uccisore is a good one.

Maybe the following formaula would be the right one for ILP: “A mod is no god but always present”. So mods should never try to be gods, not even godwannbes, but they should always be present. :wink:

I hugely agree with you in that point, because that is indeed a huge problem.

I apparently voted “No” before the middle of January. I suppose that is because I often enough feel there should be stricter moderation. I think the ban on insults–verbal violence, active aggression–is a good thing, but as you say that does not cut it. Often enough I feel there are too many cretins, or too much cretinousness. I just found out this word etymologically derives from “Christian”! And indeed, what I mean is people who are–often enough suspiciously–cocksure about their positions. I’m not calling any names, but suffice it to say there are several in this thread. Not you, though.

The solution of that huge problem should never be a quantitative one. We do not need more rules, we do not need more moderators. What we need is another quality.

Is it because you call yourself a “Supremacist”?

It derives from the French.

But again: Doesn’t that suit you, because you call yourself a “Supremacist”?

Let’s have a second interim result for the question: “Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?”.

We have 61% for “yes”, 28% for “no”, and 11% for “I don’t know”.

Please vote!

The first interim result from January, 15, 2015:

Perhaps the mods have voted in the last time. :wink:

Please vote!

Not sure if this is the right place for a discussion on my custom title. Then again, the mods are free to split it off from this thread (something I think they should perhaps do more often–though they may have good reasons for doing it as seldom as possible). Also, it’s your thread.

“Supremacist” by itself can also be short for “white supremacist”. “Philosophical supremacist” would then mean “a white supremacist who is philosophical”, whatever that means. I’m a philosophical supremacist in the sense that “philosophical” takes the place of “white”. Thus “supremacist” in my title means I believe “that one group of people is better than all other groups and should have control over them” (Merriam-Webster)–that group being the philosophers. So yeah, I believe ILP should be moderated so as to most advance philosophy. I understand, though, that to that end the love of ILovePhilosophy must, in cases of a conflict of interest, take precedence over the love of philosophy.

From the French word for “Christian”, which is cognate with the English word.

I consciously did not exclude myself. As I wrote elsewhere, I have become “a Value Philosopher–that is, I now acknowledge, and in fact insist, that my worldview is in the first place a value and only in the second place a fact. It is my will that the world be will to power and nothing besides.” (

That’s only insofar as I’m a philosopher, though.

No. It is not. But I just (journalistically) asked because of the topic of this thread.

Not for “Christian” but for a “poor Christian” in the sense of an “ill Christian” who is retarded because of an inherent hypothyroidism. So I think you mean other “cretins”.

To close the circle:

Are you saying that too many ILP moderators have not enough will to power?

No, not necessarily for “poor Christians” or “ill Christians”, but for anyone who is poor and/or ill, as the Romans tended to see Christians that way–as retards, or “dwarfed and deformed idiots” (Online Etymology Dictionary). I admit my initial rendition was imprecise.

I find it interesting that it’s cognate with “Christian”, though for the connotation of dogmatism as much as for that of idiocy. “Dogmatic idiots”–I guess that’s what I meant.

I don’t see how that follows from anything I said.

“Arsebiter” of Change? :laughing:

Only people who have never experienced actual violence, and/or are mental weaklings, compare violence (physical) with verbal insults.

A person after being verbally insulted:


A person after being physically assaulted:


Physical hurt is characterized by the victim’s loss of control, the victim becomes unable to defend themselves, and gets helplessly pounded by the one imposing their own will upon them. The situation is beyond the victim’s control.
When it comes to verbal conflict a trained, strong mind will be capable of exerting control over itself and determine what affects it, and what doesn’t, to an extent. Simple and stupid minds are easily penetrated and insulted because they lack the self-control and respond to the other on a primitive, instinctive level. In instance of verbal conflict, a so-called victim actively or passively participates in their own victimhood because they are partially in control and therefore responsible.

I wondered if anyone would notice. Nothing personal, it just seemed like a Satyresque nickname.

Only people who are physical weaklings have a problem with physical violence. Anyway, nobody is saying verbal violence is in the same league as physical violence. However, I do think they’re in the same continuum. To me it’s not so much about the content of the insult as about the lack of respect it expresses–a lack that could easily extend to not respecting the victim’s rights to life and liberty, say. Not that I believe in those rights; I just don’t want to be killed or tortured or anything and therefore don’t like the threat suggested by such insults–especially in combination with an anger like the one Satyr recently expressed towards me. (When Fixed Cross told me he thought Aidon was Satyr, my response was: “Aidon? No, man, that’s just a little troll!” Oh, wait…)

But - at least - you said this:

Moderators with enough will to power would probably mean a stricter moderation.