It’s not immoral to change or to delete text which does not meet a set standard.
Which is why we as mods try to please most of the people most of the time, but we cannot please all of the people all of the time.
We respect you as members, and we expect the same in return.
We act in accordance with our members wishes and not of our own accord, so perhaps we need to reflect this in (a more concise) new ILP posting protocol rules… a 5 point plan if you will, so I hope that Carleas will consider this…?
No. I wasn’t even aware that ILP didn’t delete posts, as I never requested it before in my 2500 or so posts. I thought it won’t be a big deal. Admittedly I was kinda surprised when my request was declined. My reasoning would be the same as Moreno’s, although he probably expressed it more clearly and eloquently than I would. I don’t agree with the reasons Carleas provided, but as we concluded in the thread about banning Lys (Lyssa), in the end it’s Carleas’s site so he can do whatever he wants.
Who would agree to be a moderator if this were the case? Even if volunteers could be found, they probably wouldn’t be the kind of people we’d want deciding what counts as legitimate philosophical discussion.
Being a moderator is a thankless job, it’s already pretty alienating, and it would be unbearable if it meant no more philosophical discussions on ILP. Keep in mind, every staff member here is a volunteer.
And for the record, this isn’t a reason and I hope I don’t come across as saying that. I mean to act for reasons, and I mean to shape site policy rationally. I engage in these discussions because I value the feedback, I find the criticism useful, and I hope that I have the strength of character to change my mind when I’m wrong.
Carleas wrote:
I see your point and agree.
I have no objection to posts being deleted if the poster has resorted to serious abuse, albeit there is the possibility of the inability of recognising the difference between philosophical argument and abuse.
I do have objection to a Mod who actually rewords another person’s post. If this sort of bastardisation takes place, an explanation saying why they thought the comment was erroneous, should be forthcoming. To re-arrange or reword a post to suit the inside of someone else’s head, is an audacious act and I think not to be encouraged.
I do believe in moderation, but then in a most unbiased way, just getting the discussion where it needs to be in a philosophically correct way.
Too many ‘go to jails’ can become stifling.
The edit rule came in after a (couple of?) incident(s) in which a user took the trouble of going through deleting every single one of his posts, rendering some threads pretty much unreadable. It’s very rare, of course, but it is not an unreasonable risk. And 24 (or 48, or 168) hours is a reasonable timeframe to allow reasonable editing while mitigating the risk.
Another solution would be to allow editing, but to keep a record of the edit, such that with an additional click the original post could be seen. This might be the most mutually-satisfactory arrangement, but would require a complete revamp of the site software, with associated risks.