Carleas,
A number of members have complained about the lack of a forum restricting threads to ‘serious’ discussion. I really have no idea what they want, but perhaps they’ll be kind enough to explain the specifics in this thread. At any rate, I’ve explained that you would give any suggestions due consideration as I’m sure you wish to cater to the needs of the membership.
Have a nice day. 
Depends what you mean by serious…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4OFSR_f1Uw[/youtube]
Previous attempts at a serious sub-forum have failed.
The new sub-forum would need to have some special ingredient which the previous failures lacked. Apparently, Typist knows what it may be.
Would somebody like to list the major reasons for previous failures?
May i humbly suggest that i gets the promotion of being moderator of that forum, as most other moderators doesn’t seems pro that idea of that forum and may be biased on objective judgement.
So, two ducks walk in to a bar.
And the first one says “Quack!”
And then the second one says, “Quack, Quack!!”
HA HA HA!! 
Get it? Get it?? He he he he he he he he he he he he…
I’m disappointed.
We’ve not yet bothered to discuss whether the desired conversations would be best created on an existing forum, or on a new forum. Pros and cons to each.
We’ve not yet bothered to discuss what kind of members are desired, where we might find them, and how they might be successfully persuaded to participate.
Thinking it through with some seriousness might be a special ingredient that’s lacking?
Well, reveal the results of your research.
Suggest how it may be done, what kind of members you would want, how you would get them to join.
If it was immediately clear which philosophers deserved a seat in the “serious” sub-forum, we wouldn’t need a forum at all, because it would be immediately clear what ideas are good and what ideas are bad. We wouldn’t need to talk about it.
It’s like starting a scientific journal that only publishes papers with true conclusions – if you knew beforehand which conclusions were “true,” you wouldn’t need science. There’s no way to limit a journal to only true conclusions (except by not publishing any papers at all) and we face similar difficulties limiting a forum to only good philosophers. I might be able to say that I know who a good philosopher is, but that list wouldn’t probably correspond to the lists of other posters, maybe not even posters I put on my list. I’d disclude Chester, Quetz and Lizbeth, but who’s to say my list that doesn’t include them is any more valid than their lists that don’t include me?
See the inherent difficulty of this project? Who decides who’s a serious philosopher? Most people would have an inherent temptation to only include in their list people that usually agree with them. But, for obvious reasons, that can’t be a very good metric…
Yeah, my idea of ‘quality’ forum members would surprise a lot of people. I don’t think specific people should be encouraged or discouraged. I would like to see a reduction in posts which contain personal attacks, irrelevant statements and thread hijackings. I’m not sure how to achieve that.
Things have calmed down immensely in recent weeks… and that wasn’t just by luck 
this thread seems to be a case of locking the door after the horse has bolted… and there will be many more horses to come - I think tougher moderation all round is key to prohibiting flaming wars, but not too strict as to stifle creativity.
No, I don’t see the difficulty. This has already been explained at length.
Extremely simple. The mod declines to publish any post which contains personal attacks, irrelevant statements and thread hijackings.
My research reveals you may be a bit of a lazy poster, at least in regards to this topic. I’ve already suggested an example right here on the forum of what might be a desired poster. You declined to explore that attempt to define the challenge more clearly. I’m still interested in discussing this, but honestly, I don’t feel asking such posters to join this particular forum is the best way forward at the moment. Maybe later.
I suggest we back up, and start again from the beginning.
There’s an imaginary guy on the net we’ll call Albert. Albert wants to create the best intellectual forum on the net. Let’s try to advise him. That’s my vote.
I doubt that Carleas is going to be too enthused if all he sees are vague complaints and no detailed rationale on what will work and the plan and people willing to make the effort. Complaining is easy. Defining what needs to be done, how it is going to be done, and who is going to do it is hard. All I’m seeing is vague notions with no real plan of action. If that’s all you have, why would the adminstration jump through hoops to help you?
Another constructive suggestion for any forum. I’m not talking about ILP, but if you wish to, your call.
The mods of any forum might create a room only the mods can post in. The mods use this room to create the kinds of threads they hope the whole forum would contain.
This exercise requires the mods to think through what it is they actually want. If the mods aren’t clear about what they want, they’re unlikely to get what they want.
This exercise requires the mods to lead by example, and provide a live demonstration of where they want the forum to go, and how they want members to participate.
Once this demonstration room has matured awhile, the mods might invite selected members to participate in the demonstration room.
The selected members must maintain the standard set by the mods to remain in the special room. If the member falls short of the standard, they are uninvited, and sent back to the regular rooms, much as a major league baseball player is sent back to the minor leagues to mature for awhile.
The mods might recruit bloggers and talent from other forums to join the special mod room, on these same terms. Consistently meeting the standard set by the mods is the price tag for being included.
Over time the Special Mod Room can be expanded, and the regular forum rooms can be trimmed back. Eventually all that’s left are members who meet the standard set by the mods.
A process along these lines might be used to convert any forum from a loose open model to an enterprise with higher standards.
Speaking only for myself, I don’t care what Carleas feels or does, and I’m not asking anybody to do anything. I don’t mean that in a snotty way, I mean only that I’m making no demands, and am at peace with whatever Carleas decides to do or not do with his or her forum.
All I have to say about Carleas is, who is Carleas? I don’t see them in any of the threads, so until informed otherwise my guess is that they are bored with their own forum. Maybe that’s a problem, maybe not, I have no idea.
My intention is to discuss forums in general, and refer to ILP mostly because that’s a topic that interests many of the other posters in this conversation.
In my own posts, I’m attempting to walk a line between being specific and inviting readers to think things through for themselves.
Not in this thread.
Sorry, you’re right, it’s in the other thread. To save you digging through that, the short answer is the mod decides which posts qualify for inclusion.
Yes, mods are imperfect human beings just like everybody else. But somebody has to do the job, so the best available person is selected, and does the best job they can. If they can’t handle the job, people stop reading, and the room dies. Same exact thing as a poster, they do the best they can, and if it’s not good enough, everybody puts them on ignore.
How would we decide the mod? Voting?
I’m of course not meaning to suggest that such a forum is impossible to organize, or that it’s impossible to set up some reasonable criteria to distinguish good thinkers from bad, just that there are some fundamental obstacles in doing those things. They may not be impossible to overcome, but they’re at least difficult enough not to ignore.