Serious discussion sub-forum

Meta
21

I’m not really sure he does, Phyllo, since, on one hand, he’s railing against “low quality content” while also arguing that there should be less moderation as concerns trollers -that is since we can choose to not read what they say.

That said, I will agree with him that it should be an available option. I don’t know about here; but it should be available. However, there are several problems with it.

For one, there is the issue of who would put in the time of moderating it. You’re basically asking a moderator to switch to the role of an editor who has to sift through the material submitted. And while I’m not really sure how the business of this board works (for instance, I’m not sure if the moderators actually own the board and the sponsors are paying them directly, or if they’re working through a webpage service that offers itself for free with the condition that they allow the sponsors to advertise) but I seriously doubt any of them make that much that they can afford to put in that kind of work. I personally love ILP; but I wouldn’t want the administrators starving to death for it.

Which leads to another issue pointed out by Humean: given that the moderator would switch to what is basically an editor, there is every possibility that they would start to act like an editor in that most of the posts selected would be chosen to fulfill the editors own vision about what the string should be. It would be like trying to publish a poem in a poetry journal: it wouldn’t be so much about the quality of the poem but, rather, how it fit in with the editor’s creative process. It would be like any one of us putting together a mix tape. An even better analogy would be a movie director who uses actors, and their creative process, to bring to fruition the director’s initial idea. And given that, you have to wonder how much griping Typist would do if one of his posts didn’t get published.

Furthermore, as Humean (and you, Phyllo, as well) also brought up, they do have the thesis and essays board which is meant for more finished pieces with a criteria that is enforced. And that seems to be suffering a coma of atrophy right now. Which makes sense and brings up an issue in that that kind of restriction can restrict the flow of creative energy –which, as far I’m concerned, is what this board is about. Satyr has a similar thing on KTS (which, of course, I’m not invited to) and, as far as I could tell, it wasn’t doing all that great. However, I would qualify my point by saying that it is one thing to ask a potential submitter to turn in a post, and quite another to ask them to turn in a fully finished essay or thesis that must fulfill college level qualifications.

That said, I think I have a solution. I say the administrators consider creating such a space and let Typist run it. That way he gets exactly what he wants and we get to see just how his theories about it pan out.

22

He’s all for the mod/editor controlling the room.

A lot of this has already been brought up in another thread. It’s 7 pages long and I think his proposals start on page 2.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=179473&start=25

23

Typist,

:astonished: :astonished: Are you out of your rabbit-assed mind??? That’s all we need is a constant litany of people accusing a mod of gestapo tactics and being unfair to poor widdle me. The goddam site would be littered with this crap. It’s bad enough that mods can’t burp, cough, or fart without the whiners going into a tail spin as it is. Mods can’t even move a thread without the resultant bitching and moaning.

I’d suggest you shitcan that idea…

24

Well, on whatever forum this might apply to, the logical question is…

Who chooses the mods now?

I would guess usually the forum owner. I don’t know how it works on ILP if that’s your question.

25

No, my question is regarding the sub-forum being proposed, not the forum that already exists.

26

Most likely, yes. :smiley:

This is easily solved for anybody who actually wants a solution.

The mods can delete any post which contains complaints about the mods, unless that post is put in to some specified section. Or, they could delete all complaint posts, and restrict such conversations to PMs. Or, they could simply ignore the baby whiners and get back to the business of creating a site for adults.

There is no magical formula by which you’ll have total freedom for just about anybody to post just about anything, and a high signal to noise ratio too.

I’ve typed all this already. Is there any chance you could type something that moves the conversation forward somehow?

27

My answer is the same. Who owns the forum? Start there.

28

This is easily answered. None of this will work on a forum where the mods don’t read the posts. If they are reading the posts, it’s no more work to read them before publication instead of after.

Good analogy.

Great, and my first act as mod will be to delete almost all of the posts you guys are contributing on this topic, because few of you are actually thinking, but rather just sitting back waiting for somebody to spoon it in your mouth so that you can spit it back up.

29

Are you seeing where you’re taking this? First, we control what is posted in the special forum, then we suppress any or all complaints related to that forum… If you want to close the site to all but the ‘elite’ members chosen by whom and how? what you’re proposing is a damn good way of shutting the site down.

You want to move forward? I’m back to my original suggestion. Start your own elitist forum of seriousness. You have company here and I’m SURE they would be willing to help. In the meantime, I’ll go back to sifting through the shit looking for something or someone worthy of my exalted attention. :unamused:

30

It depends on what the goal is dude.

If the goal is just about anybody can post just about anything, that option already exists on a huge number of forums, so there’s not a problem that needs solving.

If the goal is creating a high signal to noise forum full of intelligent writing, shutting down a “anybody can say anything” forum could be a good place to start. Clear the decks, and free the mods to apply all the time they’re willing to donate to a more interesting project.

Ok, yes, going back to shit sifting seems like a good plan for you. Go for it.

31

I would suggest that this type of Sub-Forum, even though, “Philosophy-Heavily Moderated,” was an abject failure in the past, might be worth giving a go. I would volunteer my services as Moderator if nobody else wanted it.

There was also the question of what the Moderators of this Forum earn for their services, I forget who brought it up, but all Moderators of this Forum are volunteers.

My suggestions for the Sub-Forum are as follows:

1.) No Exclusivity

-The Sub-Forum would be open for one and all, as are all of the other Fora here at ILP. The Rules and Posting Guidelines for this Forum would be far more stringent, and the result of posting outside of those guidelines would be the post getting moved to a, “Hall of Shame,” thread in that Sub-Forum to give people an example of the kinds of posts that are not acceptable in that Forum and the poster would get an immediate Warning.

-If a post is moved to the, “Hall of Shame,” the Moderator will then Edit the post and provide a detailed reason why the post was unacceptable pursuant to the special guidelines at the bottom of the post.

-There would be a Sticky Thread inclusive to a special set of Rules/Guidelines in the Sub-Forum, and every potential poster to the Sub-Forum would have to specifically agree, via post, that they had read, understand and will abide by the Rules/Guidelines in order to have their handle added to those permitted to post in the Sub-Forum. No request to be allowed to post in the Sub-Forum would be rejected, anyone could read the Sub-Forum, of course.

-Basically, post at your own risk.

2.) Minimum Word Count

-Every post must contain a minimum of five-hundred words, discluding quoted material from previous posts in the thread. The Moderator would let you slide if you were reasonably close to the five-hundred, however, any post falling egregiously short of the necessary word count would be moved to the, “Hall of Shame,” and result in a Warning.

3.) Formal Essay Style

-Every post must be written in third-person formal essay style.

-Every statistic, quote from another source or paraphrase would have to be cited pursuant to APA standards.

4.) No Quote-and-Shoot

-The occasional quote from a previous poster would be acceptable, but a paragraph-by-paragraph quote-and-shoot style would not be tolerated and would result in a move to, “Hall of Shame,” and a Warning.

5.) No Profanity/Innuendo

-The use of Profanity or Sexual Innuendo would result in an immediate Warning, regardless of context.

*The only exception to the Profanity aspect of this rule would be profanity contained within an applicable and topical quotation from an outside source.

6.) Strict Topicality

-Every post must adhere strictly to the topic of the thread and only the topic of the thread. Any post deviating, in any way, from the topic would be moved to, “The Hall of Shame,” and the poster would receive a Warning.

7.) No Repetitiveness

-It’s often difficult to completely avoid making the occasional repetitive statement within the range of a series of posts on a specific Topic, but egregious repetitiveness (i.e. making substantially the same argument over and over) would result in a post being moved to, “Hall of Shame,” and a Warning.

8.) No Unsubstantiated Statements of Personal Opinion

-Every opinion must be backed up with a reasoned argument. Posts deviating from this rule would be moved to, “Hall of Shame,” and the poster would receive a Warning.

9.) No Ad Hom Attacks Against Any Entity, Present or Otherwise

-This is simple, you could not make a personal attack against an individual, whether he/she be a celebrity, politician, or a poster. The ideas will be attacked, and the person will not, in all cases. Deviations from this rule would result in the post being moved to, “Hall of Shame,” and a Warning for the poster.

That’s what I have for now. Someone requested serious consideration for such a Forum, and I have seriously considered it. I believe that the Rules above, or something substantially similar to those Rules, would be the only way to achieve a Sub-Forum such as this, for those who wish to achieve it.

32

It’s solved for people who want your solution. My experience as a mod is that - especially on philosophical fora - people are distrustful of authority, and dislike what they see as the capricious and unjustified exercise of power, especially in steering the direction of a discussion. I think it’s likely that you’ll alienate a lot of the high-quality posters you want to attract, which works against your aim.

I’m not just moaning for the sake of keeping the status quo, but I think it’s worth pointing out that not all intelligent posters agree with you by default of being intelligent :slight_smile:

You seem to have just excluded most major works of philosophy, here :stuck_out_tongue:

33

This is complete bullshit. It assumes that whatever the mods are doing is perfectly justified, and you and I have both been on the other side of that fence and seen that it is no such thing. Being a moderator is an ego trip, like being a politician but you never have to face elections. Why is it that none of the moderators are regular posters? Because, like politicians, if they actually had any interest in living in the world they created then they would create a better world. Or at least try to. But they aren’t interested in creating a better world, they are interested in badges of authority. They may well become a moderator with good intentions, or even take over a whole site with good intentions, but the nature of hierarchical structure basically demands they turn into egotists once they get on the inside.

Would you advocate such values in the real world? Are you happy for the state to maintain a monopoly on violence, with basically no recourse available to the population? Do you label the actions of protestors to be ‘bitching and moaning’?

Perhaps the answer is yes, in which case you have given up your autonomy and deserve for the state to swipe you aside. But I’ve gone toe to toe with all kinds of moderators on all kinds of forums and one thing is abundantly clear - the rules don’t mean a damn thing, and all moderation is essentially arbitrary. Every moderator breaks their own rules, every moderator comes down harder on people they dislike than on those they like.

You might say, to do the moderating job properly (beyond simple removal of spam and child pornography and the like) is impossible. In which case I would say, just as I say about the state, why have it/them at all?

34

Ok then. So any forum is free to continue what they’re already doing, and will just have to make peace with continuing to get the same results. No problem. Surely any forum is within it’s rights to make that choice.

I think we’re reaching a useful conclusion here, which I would summarize as follows.

There’s an inherent conflict between freedom and quality. Any attempt to maximize one value will come at the cost of the other.

The fundamental issue driving these discussions is that members are looking for some magic formula by which they can have their cake and eat it too.

This might be possible to some degree, but in most discussions here and elsewhere, most members seem violently opposed to any restriction of freedom in any part of any forum. As example, some members have credibly predicted that if even one room on a forum was exclusive, the rest of the forum would then become a huge complaint about that one room.

The people have spoken. They want freedom above all else. The only widely agreed upon limit to this freedom is the restriction on spam.

The price to be paid is a low signal to noise ratio, and a very limited ability to attract the better thinker/writers in the niche the forum addresses.

No matter what choice is made there will always be a price tag associated with that choice, so it boils down to eventually making peace with some price tag or another.

Clarity of mind would suggest the next step is making peace with the price tag of the choice that’s been made here, and returning to the routine.

35

You’ve got a basic (very basic) problem: Define GOOD moderation. Chances are, the only definition you would accept is YOUR definition, and that is true of every member in the site. At some point, people need to accept the reality that there are no perfect moderators. Some may be better than others, but no single moderator or system of moderation is perfect. The only exception is MY definition. :wink: And that is the sticky wicket and will be forever and forever. I disagree that moderation ultimately ends up an ego trip. The mods I’ve known seem to fall back on the rules established by the owner of the site. Having been a mod, I enjoy NOT being one. Why? Because I’m not faced with self-censorship. As long as I stay within the general rules I get to say what I want to say without having to worry how that reflects on the administration. Mods don’t post much in the forums for two reasons. As volunteers, they might have a life beyond ILP and their moderator “duties” have them reading in their areas of responsibility and the usual house-cleaning chores. They don’t have the luxury of time to write blah blah blah like the rest of us.

As for creating a better world? That is the responsibility of the membership. All the mods can do is keep the bullshit downto a dull roar. Asking more of people who volunteer their time to do a thankless job is only a wonderful idea for those who haven’t any responsibilty for, or committment to the site.

You’re right. Why have moderation at all? The only answer I have is people would have to self-moderate, and we’ve both seen how well that doesn’t work. Moderation, rules, etc. are the necessary result because people behave badly without it. Moderation is a comment about the membership, not the folks who take on the job of moderating.

36

Sorry, but there is no ego trip on my part - a moderator’s job is made twice as hard by uncooperative posters, so might as well have fun with the situation whilst still keeping things professional huh :wink:

It sounds like we need more stringent rules for those that are not up to parr for the site - flamers, trolls (real trolls, that is…) and hounding are the main traits in posters that I think need reigning in on the site.

37

If people want to be productive members here then surely they’ve got to take a certain… responsibility for their posts and actions on here, or I foresee the site becoming a production line that each post goes through… please vote with your actions… as they do speak louder than words.

38

Here’s a real world example that might be a fun experiment for anyone interested the world of editors.

The Letters To The Editor section of your local newspaper.

Typically, anyone can submit a letter, but not all get published.

In some cases the editors will yep, edit, the submissions to improve them. Yes, almost always improve them. Remember, these are people who get paid to edit all day every day, so they usually have some idea what they’re doing.

The good news is that if your letter is published, you usually get a real audience. In my community our paper has a circulation of 100,000+, something like that. If your letter makes the cut you know at least thousands of folks will read it, instead of 23 people on some obscure forum.

It might be observed that the letter to the editor experience has been going on all over the world for hundreds of years, and civilization has not come to an end.

If you haven’t already, try it some time, it can be fun.

39

The mod of a room defines good moderation for that room, and the readers of that room decide for themselves whether they like that definition.

Just as there are a variety of posters, and we read some and not others, there can be a variety of mods, and we read some and not others. Same thing. No big deal.

The very basic problem we have is that everybody wants to have a problem, instead of a solution. :smiley:

40

That is the malaise of humanity, the ‘poor me’ syndrome - people are here to make other’s jobs/lives harder, and they thrive off of it, so is editing each post the solution?