The idea is to serve whatever audience you wish you had more of.
If a forum wants more of the type member you describe, then serve their needs by giving them the freedom to do the “poor me” dance etc.
It is not my forum to be saying what type of audience I want…
My suggestion would be that it not be called Serious forum - since ‘serious’ is so easily multi-interpreted. Heavily moderated forum, is the first suggestion I thought of. Not elegant, but in any case it gets across my preference for a functional description rather than one that sounds like a value judgment based description. IOW what can a participant expect there, rather than how are we supposed to think about what is going on.
I would give some control to the OP writers. They can define what is OK and not OK. This allows the ‘anything that I think goes against science is bad’ crowd, to restrict certain things, perhaps, but only locally, in their threads. It also might make expectations clear in other kinds of threads about what rigor is expected…
For example OP writers could say they want…
threads focused on known and cited philosophical positions
no tangents
Example and counterexample focused responses
no value judgment based responses - like in a discussion of some epistemological issue, complaints about how the quality of life would be negatively affected if this or that epistemology was the best one.
and so on.
I don’t know what moderator assistance has been committed to this. But if OP writers are little kings and queens fo their own threads this might actually cut down on how much a moderator needs to edit. They would be guided.
This is a great idea. Allowing each OP to moderate the threads they start would be cool. Everybody gets to be a mod. Good learning experience, and lots of variety in editing philosophy available. Confusing perhaps, but freedom maximized.
However, as best I understand it, most forum software assigns mods at the room level, not the thread level. Mine does anyway. If true, then the room mod would have to enforce the policies set by each OP, which could be a lot of different policies.
Hmm… A work around might be…
A poster applies for a “Special Thread License” in a particular room. If the mod of that room agrees, then the room mod will delete any post in that thread not from the OP.
If others want to post in that thread, they PM their post to the OP. If the OP likes the post, they post it using their account, but state “This post is from XYZ”.
This could be implemented on any forum, if the mods are willing.
I’m sure that there are 42983 things wrong with this idea, and that I’ll be learning what they are very soon. So exciting! 
As I said, they don’t live in the world they create. Whatever the reason, this is why moderating is equivalent to the state.
If their moderation is not supposed to be making the ILP world better then why have it at all? If it were trying and failing, that’s one thing, but to not even be trying makes me think we would simply be better off without it. Same for the state. I would rather we didn’t have it, or that its responsibility only extended as far as eliminating those things that are not in dispute (child porn, spam, etc.). If the posters are responsible for making the ILP world better then let them actually be responsible for it. To say they are responsible, and then be almost continually interfering with it is a total contradiction.
It isn’t about rules per se, it’s about how those rules are enforced. I am saying that moderation only ever represents the interests of the moderators. Anarchism doesn’t have to mean chaos. It can mean order that is entered into voluntarily.
What?
The manifesto of the weak…
First of all, thanks for clearing up my uncertainty about how the business of ILP works. I thought it was something like that, which brought up the question of whether someone would want to do the work of an editor for no pay –especially when a lot of their time may be taken up with the more mundane matters of life. Once again, I have no problem with the board as is. And while I see the utility of such a string; I see no reason for one of the mods having to starve or live on the streets for such an endeavor.
On the other hand, the desire to be on such a board may be so low as to make it no more work than what you have to do now.
Well, of course. It should be no different than submitting to a magazine or newspaper. And the threat of the hall of shame preempts any frivolous posts.
Fair enough.
Yes! This would keep out the drive-by style of philosophizing we usually turn to these boards to be able to do. This, as I will into deeper, is what leads to the more negative aspects of these boards.
Now this you may have to go into the technicalities of (in the rules part) for those of us who are less formally trained. I, for instance, am not familiar with the APA standard of citing other texts.
The third person, formal essay style, however is a really good idea while also presenting some problems. I have often found switching from the perspective we usually use to third person useful when dealing with difficult people in that not only does it offer me the hope of pissing them off, but that it offers me a bit of distance that makes it seem less personal. I tend to stay a lot cooler when using it.
However, this presents issues due to certain philosophical conventions that we have learned from professional philosophers such as “we must consider that” or “our thesis now takes a new turn” or “one must consider the possibility that”. Even the use of “I” presents an issue that I will cover further down.
That said, I think the real issue here is use of the second person perspective, or the word “you”. Statements like:
Inevitably lead to statements like:
Once again, it is an important addition. But I think the rule could be revised to be a general prohibition on the word “you” or any variation of it.
Once again, the point here is to evolve from the drive-by style of philosophy we usually engage in to something more finished. This goes back to your 500 word minimum. And as useful as the drive-by style is to me, it’s easy to see why this would be important. And as I have pointed out before, it is what gets us into trouble. I mean what is posting something like:
but a drive-by? However, we have to remember that such a thing can said in 3rd person as well.
This could run into a problem. As Humean points out:
To revise a point made by Russell, it seems to me that philosophy lies in that no-man’s land between science and art. Therefore, not having the kind of verification tools available to science, it would be kind of hard to avoid personal opinion. It’s almost like you’re asking for a science paper as compared to a philosophical one. And this brings us up against the issue of the use of the word “I” as in “I believe such and such to be the case”. If you disallow such a term, then you’re engaging in the operationalism of making it scientific thread. But, once again, that can be resolved by putting a strict ban on the use of the word “you”.
And as far as repetitiveness, a lot of philosophy involves finding a better way to articulate a thing. I see it a lot in both Rorty and Zizek. And it is by watching for what they repeat that we get to their main point.
As far as Ad Hom attacks, I’ll have to turn traitor on Humean and abandon him (sorry, brother!). Most of the Ad Hom attacks I hear between famous philosophers generally come during interviews (such as Searle’s attacks on Derrida or Foucault and Baudrillard’s feud) and not in their actual writing. Therefore, it is a workable rule.
If you’re up to it, brother, then I’m all for it with triple exclamations!!! Anything that will channel the philosophical snobs away from the more live-and-let-live among us can only make my reason for being here only better. Plus that, should I find myself confronted with one of those snobs, I will be in a better position to say “if you really think you’re at that level, why aren’t you on pav’s board that was made for people like you rather than fucking around with us “amateurs”?".
(We have come to a point where we have forgotten that the word “philosophy” originally meant “love of wisdom”. We deal, rather, with people who have become intellect abundant while being wisdom deficient.)
For myself, I’m just here because it allows me to practice my writing skills when I’m too busy reading to use them to a more finished effect. I’m here for the jam and the briccolege -like a rock star. And that brings up another issue in that most of these people are here to develop or engage in conversation with intelligent people. We hear a lot about the small-talk. But given, as one philosopher said, even the act of making a sandwich implies the philosophical question of whether life is worth going on with or not, I see no problem with it –that is as long as you work to bring it back to something philosophical.
The important advice I would give to you, though, is that given we can be certain you have a life, if it becomes too much, you don’t owe Typist so much that you wouldn’t have the right to walk away. This isn’t his board or anyone that might choose to engage in such an experiment. But given the benefit I stand to get from it, if you do attempt it, my hat comes off to you. Just don’t kill yourself for it, okay?
Bumping…
I thought this was the best suggestion to emerge from our rant fest.
It seems curious that we lost interest just at the point when a solution that would serve a wide variety of opinions was found.
The only flaw I can see in Moreno’s idea is in the mechanics of how the OP would be given control over their thread. Could a mod confirm that it’s not technically possible to assign mods on a per thread basis using this software? Anybody have suggestions of how OP control could actually be implemented?
I’m not suggesting an entire forum be converted to this system, just a dedicated section.
I agree, it’s a very good idea. You don’t need different fora, you can just search by OP poster.
You can’t assign mods per thread using this software, and I’ve not seen any fora where that approach is used. I’m sure someone with sufficient programming skills could tweak it - the phpBB boards are full of modded software, although most of it far more cosmetic/minor. I have no idea how much work it would be, though, and my programming skills are somewhere on the “Hello World!” level.
Ok, thanks for confirmation. If other mods agree, we’re on to the challenge of implementation.
I don’t understand, could you explain further?
Yes, that’s my understanding as well. My own forum software uses the standard “mod by room” plan.
I could do the mod in my own forum software, but not in phpBB. Nor do I know how much work it would be to do in phpBB, but I’m guessing it wouldn’t be a free thing. Given that the idea hasn’t been tested, and we don’t even know what the interest level is, it probably makes more sense to deploy it on a limited basis using some readily available but imperfect work around.
The best I can come up with so far is…
-
A room is dedicated to this purpose. Rest of forum stays the same.
-
Members present a thread proposal to the mod. If mod accepts proposal, mod agrees to delete any post in that thread not from OP. Thus, mod is not making judgment calls, except perhaps to discipline members who deliberately abuse the system.
-
All submissions to the thread are sent to OP via PM. OP publishes those posts that meet their criteria via their own account, crediting the author appropriately.
Sorta clunky, but uses existing software without need of change.
Here’s a real world example. In the public net’s early days there was an email based discussion group called I-Sales Digest (webmaster issues). It worked like this. Anybody could send a post to the moderator. If the moderator liked the post, he would include it in one of the daily issues. Similar to the Letter To The Editor feature of newspapers. The writer gets full credit for their contribution, but they don’t control whether their article is published.
Below I make two related suggestions: one for a sub-forum, one for a ILP wide option based on this idea of OP writers controlling threads via mods.
- If you had an OP writer controlled discussion sub-forum, one moderator could be assigned to mod it. The moderator would then moderate with guidance from the OP writers.
Yes, this could lead to a lot of work…if the mod did not set limits to their own involvement.
The ideal, for some thread makers, might be that the mod fine edits people, and eliminate anything slightly tangential, etc. But the mod could make some forum statement about how there will be a limit on the labor they are going to put in.
From there the mod could, eliminate major tangents, warn people that they are not conforming to the guidelines as presented in the specific OP. IOW push the thread in the direction of the OP writer’s desires, but without taking on the responsibility of a Thread God.
I think there is a good chance this would lead to more work than other modding, but perhaps not much more.
- Another option - which I like better - would be that this can happen in any forum. There is no special forum for this. Perhaps the thread writer PMs the appropriate mod with a copy of their intended OP, and some of their wishes for restrictions and rigor. The mod could agree or not, perhaps even depending on such things as their interest in the topic. Then the thread is started - the OP writer copying and pasting the OP post they sent to the mod - with some sort of sign that it is a THREAD WRITER DOMINATED THREAD with restrictions, preferably one that can be seen even scrolling topics. Could be three zeds before the subject so no programming is needed:
ZZZ The Problem of Other Brains
A culture tweak so we know…here there is more OP writer control.
I don’t think people will be lining up to do this, actually, so it might not add much work.
And mods then have the option of saying no, especially if there already are a number of these on their table and it turns out they take up too much time - as determined by the mods own interest and willingness.
Mods would also learn the styles/demands of the people who did tend to use this option, and might simply start saying NO to people who end up taking up too much of their time or making what seem like irrational or mean spirited demands.
Mods also might find it a bit fun, something on the order of on-line checkers or better. It might have a kind of aesthetic appeal and I could see that where a mod found it worked with a particular member, they would be happy to repeat with new threads by the same person.
If would be a lot of work if the mod had to manage an infinite number of different policies set by the OPs. Too much work, imho.
But if all the mod had to do was delete posts not by the OP, then it’s a pretty simple job. People who broke this rule could be spanked, reducing the need for the mod.
Also, mods could limit their involvement by requiring posters to apply for these threads. The poster must make a case that they have a thread idea worth pursuing. Sadly, my Fart Jokes Thread would probably not be approved.
If the mods still desire higher quality discussions, they could line up to start their own threads in this section, to demonstrate how it works.
No, this is incorrect. The mods should be required by law to work full time for us for free, and not whine about our abuse either. I’d also like them to wash my car.
What prevents this ‘THREAD WRITER DOMINATED THREAD’ from becoming an ego fest where posts praising the OPoster proliferate and opposition is deleted?
The mods presumably would not want to participate - if you are responding to my latest suggestions. IOW they have to get a mod to agree to help them keep the thread as they like it.
Nothing.
Why is everybody so incredibly worried about such things? Have you never met a thread you decided to skip??
I’m just wondering about how much long term interest there is in helping one poster wank off. Maybe people want to do it, I don’t know. I don’t worry.
Yeah, they get mod approval. Will it produce a good thread? I suppose it depends on how much control is being exerted over the thread and the direction of control. It could produce a discussion uncorrupted by pointless and insulting posts or it could produce a cheerleading session.
The problem with the OP playing mod for her own threads (assuming it were technically feasible; it’s not, but it’s instructive nonetheless) is that it creates an incentive to start threads rather than to discuss in others’ threads. An OP mod could be capricious in their moderating, and a thoughtful post could be deleted on a whim. Some of my most personally valuable contributions to ILP were responses, and I wouldn’t want the owners of those threads to have veto power over them.
This is less of a problem when we’re talking about a mod-mediated OP control, because a mod can refuse capricious requests. But this solution has the real problem of work, and I wouldn’t take on the task, or ask any other mod to. Pav has volunteered for a different labor-intensive board, and if he wants to do that or this, I’m happy to enable that. Though I should clarify, I’m really only willing to do it because I think any heavily moderated or OP moderated forum to be a miserable failure and be clearly in line for the scrap heap within a year. If that weren’t the case, paradoxically it would present the ongoing problem of finding the next moderator to take over when Pav gets elected president.
To Pav’s suggestion:
#1 seems clearly right to me. The last forum fell largely because it was exclusive (though possibly because it excluded the wrong people). #2 is a good idea, but hard to enforce. A looser rule of “substantial additional content” would allow for more flexibility (if someone puts a lot of time or research into producing a graphic, they could make a contribution without many words at all. Also, so revised, it would capture #7, which you don’t really want. It’s often worth repeating things. #3 is unworkable, beyond a general standard of “academic” writing. In any case, #3 covers #4. Fuck the fucking shit out of #5. #6 is basically what we’re shooting for, I’d promote it. #8 is hard, opinion is hard to differentiate from reason, and not always bad. It can be the jumping off point of interesting discussions as well, e.g. “Because abortion is sad, we know xyz about the human condition…” #9 is also hard, and probably covered by a revised #3 or #6. Some blanket descriptions of groups can be both valid and offensive to members of the group. Barring descriptors like “stupid” or “retarded” or “ugly” in most cases is probably about as close as you can get to this.
SIATD, I agree with most of what you’ve said about mods, with a few small provisos. The internet is not the real world. In the real world, people have buy-in to their surroundings. We want our neighborhoods to be safe, so we have incentive to police ourselves and our neighbors. Strangers that come to our neighborhoods bring with them something of value (themselves, their freedom), giving them a good incentive to behave. On the web, there is no such buy-in. Spammers come here all the time and take advantage of that. All we can do is ban a virtual moniker they got for free.
Also, I think you overestimate the ego-boosting value of being a moderator on a message board. Satyr created a whole new website after we banned him from here. I think the mods actually have some interest in seeing good discussion, and few competing interests that outweigh that. And they do live in the world they create, though perhaps not as much as they did before they were called upon to defend the Word.
The internet is part of the real world. It is real, these words are actually words, the feelings and thoughts they might or might not inspire are real. People have been provoked by the internet to commit acts of terrorism, to kill themselves, all sorts of stuff.
Spammers are like people who just turn up in our village and shit in the street. If people want to run them out of town, I have no objection. If all the moderators did was sweep up spam then I’d praise them for doing a public service.
I’m not sure how this contradicts what I’m saying. Satyr was possibly the most ego-driven poster I’ve ever encountered.
Then get rid of the staff-only discussion forum…
Hi Carleas,
It’s already been shown to be technically feasible, though admittedly in an inelegant fashion.
This has already been dealt with. The OP would have to get permission from the mod, a burden they don’t bear in regular rooms.
Whereupon the deleted post could be posted in a thread of it’s own, or in another thread. And, then that poster could choose to hereafter not participate with that OP. If that happened enough, the OP would be out of business in all their threads.
As described above, the OPs would not limit your freedom to post a particular article in any thread but one.
All problems solved.