I noticed it, but I decided to not mention it, because I did not want to derail my own thread; and that is als the reason for this post: the risk of derailment is given. So, please, keep to the point: “Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?”.
So you, Arbiter (or “Arbeiter” [nobody noticed?], or “Arsebiter”) and Sauwelios, are not satisfied with the ILP moderation and have well founded, justified, reasoned arguments.
What can we do in order to get a better ILP moderation?
Possibly. But too strict moderation would again drive people away, leading to a decrease of mod power. So there’s probably a high point to the proportion between strictness and power, and as I’m no mod here, I don’t know where it is. But yeah, I suppose you could infer that I feel the ILP mods overall do not have strong enough will to power–on ILP, that is.
Yes, but it is an option. A good webforum does not need to have many but good members. It is a matter more of quality than of quantity that shows how good a webforum is. If ILP banks more on quantity than on quality, then it will lose members who bank on quality (and I will be among them). ILP should bank on more quality and hazard the less cruel consequences, because it is better to take a qualitative loss than a qualitative loss.
Yes, but perhaps also leading to a better quality of ILP.
So the change of the ILP moderation is a risk, and probably Carleas does not want to risk anything.
[size=70]P.S.) I do not hope that I am going to be banned because of this post. 
[/size]
As with all of life, moderating or governing can be very strict as long as it is very consistent and also allows everything to get done that actually needs doing. But that takes intelligence and careful attention.
People (and all animals) prefer strict rules as long as they are consistent and allow for everything truly needed. People can trust things that are consistent.
Yes. Intelligence and careful attention are two of the most important components of the “quality” I mentioned (see above).
Agreed.
I’m quite sure you’re not.
Many ILP members misuse philosophy and thus also ILP. Why is the misuse of philosophy not the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum named “I Love Philosophy”? The ILP subforum “Religion and Spirituality” is especially misused by those ILP members. The other subforums are less misused but also not free from misuse. Many ILP members circumvernt the valid rules (for example those that refer to ad hominems) by using false or partly false definitions, preconditions (premises) in order to troll, to derail threads, and to enforce ideologies or other political orders that have nothing to do with philosophy. Thus they are always off-topic and in violation of ILP rules but not or seldom of the main ILP rule: “ad hominems are not allowed”.
Philosophy is not liberalism.
The misuse of philosophy should be the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum named “I Love Philosophy”.
I would think a misuse would be impossible to ascertain do to the various philosophical approaches, schools, and intended uses of it. a misuse would be nearly impossible to discover, since the many formed uses are too numerous to detect. I may have an intentional project t in mind, whereas someone with whom a discussion is going on, may have another reason for the same, if any at all. in philosophy, at times, the levels of communication are not always appearent, to enable the communicators to understand each other, or to come to anything but an agreed on agreement. The times are rare when mutual understanding becomes implicitly taken for what it implies.
A misuse would be nearly impossible to discover? Logical rules are better known than “ad hominem” rules. So a misuse is easier to discover by using logical rules than it is by using “ad hominem” rules. “Ad hominem” rules have more room for interpretation than logical rules. Thus ILP needs more quality, more intelligence and careful attention:
Let’s have a third interim result for the question: “Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?”.
[size=120]We have 67% for “yes”, 24% for “no”, and 9% for “I don’t know”.[/size]
Please vote!
The first interim result from January, 15, 2015:
The second interim result from May, 27, 2015:
Within 3 (three) days 6% more for “yes” (61% => 67%) …! 
Please read the last post of this page!
Arminius, how are ad hominem rules differ from logical ones? Can’t they be subsumed under logic as well? Is not propriety a function of ascending loyalty into the realm of desired social intercourse? (Without which the mutual trust in the virtues of honesty could not sustain)
For example by political correctness, because political correctness has nothing to do with logical correctness, often even not with correctness.
They can, yes, but they often are not or at least not correctly but e.g. political correctly.
The logical rules should be the main rules, and the ad hominem rules should be subsumed under them.
Unfortunately propriety is often misused, and not seldom caused by “ad hominem” rules, although they are wanted to prevent misuse, but they do not satisfactorily work, because misusers can easily circumvent “ad hominem” rules and nevertheless be in violation of them by using other methods, especially such methods I mentioned several times in this thread.
The logical rules should be the main rules, and the ad hominem rules should be the subordinated rules. Such regulations strengthen both logic and propriety. They lead to the lack of people who like ad hominems.
You mean the lack of regulations lead to the rationale which are the cause célèbre of the goals of the users of ad hominems?
I mean if the “ad hominem” rules do not satisfactorily work, then there is already a lack of regulation, at least in an applied sense.
Ok, I understand.
There is little love of philosophy on ILP. Essentially we have a collective of disempowered individuals who are trying to empower themselves in whatever way they see appropriate (Mods also exhibit this behaviour). Out of this, power plays and pecking orders evolve. An individual will subsequently develop behaviours that seek to protect their own reputation and discredit the reputation of others (all are guilty of this including yours truly). People then become delusional and begin to fabricate narratives within their own minds which portray themselves as all powerful super-philosophical heroes and others as idiotic villains that need to be vanquished (preferably through the use of magic philosophical powers).Things rapidly degenerate into a war; where all’s fair in Love and Philosophy.
I voted “NO”… but, if I had my way, everyone but me would be banned for life. 
Funny how trolls so well describe their own behavior.
Yes, it is funny how well they do that. Do you have something to contribute Fixed Cross?
I encourage you to vote on my “Am I a Troll” thread.
You frame this as a comment on ILP, but you seem to just be describing humanity as a whole. ILP can’t help it that humans are our primary audience.