Mods, may i ask?

Yes, i can do that easily but will not do. Because, it is not the issue between me and you or any third person either. It is about ILP in general, hence other members also have right to know what is going on and participate also.

I agree with that and that is why i asked Mods those specific questions to explain their subjective view and its justification on the issue, which i expect to be the same and also applicable to all.

Well, i got the massage, loud and clear. I will refrain myself from taking any direct name in the future. But, that would not change anything. I will still persue the case till its conclusion.

In simple words, i am being told by the mods that i can insult and abuse anyone but only indirectly. But, any straightforward, decent and honest objection is not allowed.

Which correctness is more important; politically or intentionally?

It is true that members always have the option to put anyone on ignore. But, my point is why allowing any such thing to happen in the first place?

I am not saying that mods should stop anyone or anything at once and without any asked and given justification or discussion. So there is no way i am justifying what happened in the case of Socrates, as you pointed out.

I just want that discussion to happen, not because i am concerned about any particular member, but ILP as a whole.

That is the only purpose why i created this and previous thread too about the same issue. That particular person and his personal ideology, about whom the previous thread was concerned, is not important to me, though his way of presentation is.

That is precisely the issue.

[u]Putting technical duties aside, may i ask what precisely Mods are supposed to do other than not allowing posters and discussions to cross a certain limit?

If that is true then is it not some sort of parenting, even though may be mild one?

And, if it is not true and every poster is allowed to go to any limit then why ILP requires so many different mods for every section?

In that case, what else is required to be moderated?[/u]

My previous thread has been locked because it was about an individual poster. Right.

[u]So, going by the same logic, why demeaning threads about a particular gender should not be locked?

Are women (as a whole) are not a specific individual group?[/u]

Not any poster but i will specify some posts for sure to be judged.
Here they come -

I think that would be enough to make you understand what my objection is. But, realize that these all are from just one thread.

I just want to know how do you still not see this a conscious effort to demean and insult a individual specific gender? And why?

By the way, i came to know about you being busy somewhere. You may take your time. No hurry.

with love,
sanjay

There are two problems here, Sanjay.

  1. There is no enforcement of civil discourse or language. Therefore, anything goes, any word can be used.

  2. The posters are not required to support their statements with evidence.

The solutions are fairly simple.

If someone uses inappropriate language, then he is warned. If it continues, then he is banned.

If someone makes a statement which is unsupported, then the mods and other posters have to put him on the spot and demand evidence. If he cannot provide it, then continued interaction is just gossiping about opinions. I realize that the site can still be flooded with opinions and you will not be banning posters for having opinions. However, mods can delete or merge new threads which are simply repetitions of existing/previous threads - mods can limit spamming.

Agreed, up to here.

Again agree with that. I am not asking mods to warn or impose ban merely for anyone’s opinions either. That would be suicidal for any philosophy forum.

I am not against anyone posting their opinons. Everyone has equal right to have his own opinions and i am no one to object that. Yes, if his opinion differs with mine, i may well be agrue for my case, and the other person also have equal right to defend himself. Both posters may agree or even agree to disagree also. I am absolutely fine with that.

My objection is not about opinions but their way of presentations only.

If anyone says that it is also his right to have an opinion about his way of presentation, which may be vulgar, insultive and abusive to the half of the human population, only then my objection stands.

I just want mods to difine the limits, if they think that there should be any?
And, even if they say that there is no limit, i am again fine with that too.
But, i want them to say it at least either way, loud and clear
.

with love,
sanjay

Being a moderator is a mostly thankless job I think, and I have great appreciation for what most of the mods here do. But I think you make some excellent points, Sanjay.

I am in total agreement with that. They have to bear the onslought all the times, whether right or wrong, and, without any credit given too.

If they do anything right, it is said that it was merely their duty hence no applause is required.

Me too. And, i have asserted it some time back in this very forum in a different thread.

I have been on some other philosophy forums before and no hesitation in saying that the moderation here is far better than many of those. And, that is precisely my concern is.

I do not want to see ILP folowing the same route.

Yes,i know that.

If those issues were not worthy of raising, i would have not raised those in the first place.

with love,
sanjay

I could not care less what is said against women in one or two threads. I object to the amount of threads being done. It is spamming pure and simple. I have to love or care about a person to get insulted by their opinion, so what is said against women here has no effect except slight humor. Its spamming that annoys.

There is a “report post” button for offensive posts; I wouldn’t permit such in Philosophy, but each forum is moderated differently.

It’s a fine line; if we do nothing, people complain for the reasons you do. If we take action, people complain about censorship and moderators forcing their politics on posters, how important free expression is to philosophical discourse, and so on.

And then of course there are some posters who post little of value and just enjoy reliving their toddler years when Mummy only paid attention to them if they were naughty.

I don’t think the mods have ever effectively stopped anyone from saying what they want to say. They might move it, but it’s still there. They may ban the guy, but the guy literally comes back w/ a new name 45 mins later. So in the end, most all the discussion about what mods do and don’t do it moot, because by the nature of the game they are completely ineffective and their actions carry no consequence for anyone at all, so long as people know that they can just make a new account.

Has anyone ever thought of it that way?

I’m not trying to be offensive or say that the mods are impotent, but they really are if you think about it for just one second. The only real power they have is to rearrange the site or delete a post. That’s not enough power to even accomplish a goal of tyranny. When I see complaints about mods, I picture little kids complaining to adults about things they think are unfair because they don’t understand the world. It’s crazy.

OH,

Yes, there is fine line but it should not be taken as there is absolutely no line.
Some posts, which i quoted above, gives the impression that there is no line.
But, on the other hand, my previous thread was locked so it tells me there is certainly a line.
Otherwise, what was the reason to lock that thread?
This creates confusion.

And, I just want mods to define that line once again, in order to avoid that confusion.
Is it not a simple and justified demand?

With love,
sanjay

Translation: We need to censor and limit what other people can or can’t say.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuNhTLVgV2Y[/youtube]

No, still wrong.

We need to limit how people are saying, not what they are saying.

There is a hell of difference between two things, if one is competent enough can understand that.

And, it should be applicable to all posters. There are no others around here at ILP.

with love,
sanjay

You want more censorship than the lite version we have now because you don’t like other people’s views. Just admit it already.

No. Zinnat wants civility (reasonable consideration of others).

In reality if the mods merely stuck hardcore to the “Off Topic” rule, they would need little else. Ad homs are always off topic. Zinnat is also asking for reasonable constraints on derogatory labels. And for debating, I would want a constraint on belligerent avoidance of relevant questions.

But without a purpose defined for this or any forum, no rules can be rationally justified.

Translation: We need more authoritarianism and rules on ILP to keep all the heretics out. We’re trying to create a christian environment.

Think of the children.

The Earth that I Demand, but I save my voice.

Smears,

Do you think that your are the only person to be intelligent enough to find out this simple fact that any banned poster could come here again under different identity?

A banned poster may come again thousand times but if the mods would stick to the same rules, either he would have to face ban again or if he would have been learned from his first expreience, then he would also follow the rules this time.

So, the problem is solved in either case. And, if a banned poster come again under different identity but follow the rules, i do not have any issue with that because he has been learned from his mistakes and ready to abide by the rules now.

Have you ever thought of it that way?

Smears, you again got it wrong.

Every tryant is ruler by default, but every ruler need not to be a tryant by default.

There is absolutely no need for the mods to be a tryant. A normal and simple moderation is more than enough for ILP.

But, the terms of moderation should be defined, consistent and fair to all. That is all i am asking.
Furthermore, i am not pressing for moderation either. Owners of ILP may say that they do not see any need of moderation. I am fine with that too but let them say that clearly, at least.

But, in that case, my question still stands that, for what my previous thread has been locked?
Would you like to answer that?

Well, everyone has his own capacity of thinking and use to think accordingly.
A child may think in his wisdom that this world of made of only children like him
.

Children often think that they know more than their parents and other adults. But, they do not understand their parents have seen a lot more of this world and its inhabitants than those innocents; much more than they cannot even imagine.

with love,
sanjay

Wrong again, as usual.

But, Never mind, i have more patience to correct you than your capacity to presenting it wrong.
So, keep on pretending as long as you can. I will not dishearten you ever
.

So, here we are, perhaps for the fifth or sixth time-

I want more censorship merely on way of expression, not expression itself.

My personal liking or disliking does not matter, neither yours.

I neither like nor dislike you.
The fact of the matter is that i do not agree with you. That is all.
And, for your kind information, disagreement does not entail disliking
.

On the other hand, is it not true that you do not merely disagree with feminists, but rather dislike or even hate them.

See the difference, if you can.

with love,
sanjay

That is far better response.

I think that it would be far better for some posters if they restrict themselves only to such posts.

with love,
sanjay