Agreed. But I’m looking for a bit of consensus and finding damned little. It makes buy-in a little hard to come by. Some have opined that any established form of discussion kills quality and we’re supposed to know quality when we see it. That may be true, but it also makes it impossible to establish a venue to attract quality discussion. I’m not quite sure why the tried and true practice of peer review isn’t enough. We already have that. Granted, most posts are little more than the usual three sentence gloss, but there are plenty of threads where ideas are fleshed out, contested, and otherwise provide a short-hand version of academic review. Perhaps slightly tighter moderation to keep topic drift and extraneous posts under control would be beneficial, but it seems that any attempt to do such a thing is met with howls of ‘being picked on’ by those fascist moderators. I think typist is probably right in that people want to see quality discussion as long as they don’t have to perform it and remain free to blather anywhere and everywhere.
o,
I’m tired of your complaints. There are only two options available to any member who post’s here. They can judge their own writings by themselves or they can submit their writing to the judgement of others. Or, they can do both. The notion that quality simply exists and is apparent to all is a romantic notion, but falls short of what is needed if "quality’ discussion is to take place. You see criteria as anathema, and yet you have criteria for judgement just the same. So does everyone else. That I’m not impressed with vague concepts like “well read”, or ‘clear thinking’, or ‘rational’ progression isn’t a bad thing. Without some form of criteria, there is no way to judge anything. What that criteria might be is obviously up to those responsible for judgement. But the person who would attempt to post to a “serious” venue needs some guidelines as to what will be accepted or rejected.
I understand you don’t like that idea, but it doesn’t change the necessity if there is to be any buy-in by the membership.
I’m not interested in responding to your examples of the history of ancient philosophy. What was philosophy and what is philosophy today is quite different - and how one approaches philosophy today is also different. Different times require different perspectives.
AGREED… and if you would have read my post, you would know that. I AM NOT THE ONE ARGUING FOR ANYTHING LIKE CONSENSUS… YOU ARE.
There are no universal, generalizable truths about what quality philosophy is, that are at the same time also helpful for distinguishing it. PROOF: Read Plato, then Descartes, then Kant, then Nietzsche—and tell me what they have in common besides the questions they’re addressing. Please, do this… and then you’ll have your criteria. And I’ve already argued against this…
here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=179839
–Please, for once read and respond to the actual arguments, rather than re-stating your opinion.
Most questions brought up for philosophical scrutiny are mechanical questions; questions that are born from answer that have already been given. Are there questions that a person can call his own …. that have never been asked before? Probably not. So, we’re saddled with answers gathered from all these sources and yet find, in the event we wish to change ourselves, that we simply think and feel a little differently but still remain basically the same relying on what our own skill and reasoning is based on as we experience situations in our lives day to day. When daily needs are simple and basic, philosophy in complex contrariness becomes mere entertainment and diversion.
Actually I don’t think like this. I don’t sit around thinking ‘Oh, I wish quality writers would show up here.’ In specific situations I wish people would argue with more integrity, with better focus on the positions they are responding to, more clearly, with less ad homs, and sometimes I just wish they could make what for me seem like obvious connections. I am sure they react to me the same way and perhaps some of them are even right on occasion. 
But then, this is life. This is the way things are. If I want to have a debate with a philosopher, someone who really knows their shit, I will go out of my way to do this. Here I come in contact with representatives of various paradigms, people who reflect the mixed set of ideas and contradictory paradigmatic ‘entries’ in my mind. And part of their realness and relevence, is the fact that they are not great philosophers. it works for me and in part because of their failures. Not because this means I am right, that they make errors and do not argue their case or against mine as well as one could. But rather because that represents precisely the kinds of thinking I find around me and in me. It is that kind of mixed bag thinking that does damage and is also the enemy within.
Well edited philosophical writing is something I can easily find elsewhere, and do, and well structured dialogues are also things I could create and find elsewhere.
I dunno. Philosophy Forums is tighter and more people there can quote more philosophy and organize their posts better than the average post here - in my off the cuff evaluation. So if people really want this they could go there and get at least a little more.
If people are really not getting what they want, I think they need to either consider replacing the time spent here with something else OR questioning what their real motivations for being here are.
What role do they like having?
Perhaps they have found a place for this role - which may include thinking everyone else can’t think rationally here and this is a shit place which allows them the role/self-image as someone who is really rational slumming with the ignorant peasants and stoically suffering their ignorance and poor thinking. This by the way was not directed at you, it is another poster who has expressed this attitude - not the desire for the role.
When will punks like you realize that you’re the ones paying, and that it’s effort not cash that you have to spend? People like you ruin everything.
Agreed. And sometimes if they feel that way about you, it’s precisely because they have on display these negative qualities—and you don’t. Not always—but more than necessary.
This has absolutely nothing to do with formatting, or length, or spelling mistakes, or everything I suppose you mean by “well edited”. It’s about simply finding and creating quality discussions. Yes, you can go to Philosophy Forums. And maybe we should.
This is a good example of lack of integrity, ad hom, and poorly made connections.
A Proposal: we change the Academy, removing the formatting and size rules. We appoint a mod to moderate it. I’m willing to start there while it gets off the ground, but I’m also happy to see someone else take it on; preferably someone with an understanding of philosophy and a fairly inclusive view of what constitutes philosophy.
- Any OPs that the mod feels aren’t high enough standard philosophically, or are closer to science/social study/religion/etc. get moved to another forum.
- Any responses that are not serious, philosophical attempts to address other posts in the thread, keeping broadly to the thread topic, get deleted or split off to another forum. Deleted posts can still earn warnings.
- We accept that the moderator’s decision is final and that there will be no individual reviews (otherwise the mod’s job dissolves into he-said-she-said whinges and accusations of favouritism).
- The people currently complaining get off their backsides and make the effort to participate in the new forum.
- Anyone flooding the board with crap just to give the moderator a hard time gets one warning per post.
Basically, the Philosophy forum with a quality rule applied to the best of a moderator’s abilities, and zero tolerance for adolescent bullshit.
Comments?
(This is a discussion piece, rather than a plan of action.)
This is very similar to the original “Philosophy - Heavily Moderated” forum. I like the simplicity.
I would add one provision: Any thread starting in any forum complaining about decisions made in the Academy receives an automatic 30 day ban. If this forum is to be taken seriously, then all of administration needs to take it seriously as well. Otherwise, all the Academy will produce is a constant stream of bitch and moan threads. Draconian? Probably. But there has to be a put-up-or-shut-up stance taken somewhere.
What about this: Topics in the academy could have sister topics in other forums (whichever would be relevant) for smaller posts that would more normally be found outside the academy? Say the First post is placed in both forums, and what not. People could quote and paste from the academy posts if they wanted to bring something into the lower venue, so to speak. And any post that a mod thinks is less than acceptable (but doesn’t break the rules of the general forums) could be moved to that thread? It would save some amount of a poster’s ego, as opposed to deletion which is essentially saying “your idea is so bad, no one should see it”. Instead it’s just saying “this isn’t really the right venue for this particular post, but you can continue this here: ___”
I agree with most of O_H’s proposal. However, I think that science/social/religion OPs should be kept if they are well thought out and supported.
I think that citations should be required on quoted material. The format of the citation is not important as long as it is possible to get to the original source.
It’s not asking much anyway. If you’re quoting it from the internet you already have one, and if you own the book you can at least get something…
OH’s proposal is exactly what I was pushing for: Inclusive view of philosophy, and competent moderator discretion. I think it’s exactly the right idea.
I can put together a few general comments about what an inclusive view of philosophy looks like, and this could be changed or ironed-out and worked into something that could preface the forum. --Not rules, since the ones in the Philosophy section are fine… more like a welcome mat.
About complaints… Why don’t you just make a section within that forum for grievances? Every complaint can be moved there, and nobody needs to look at it except the moderator.
“If it can go wrong, it will.”
A) So how is a moderator disqualified and/or removed?
If punishment is to be given, reward (of some nature) should also be given, else interest in taking the risk is rationally lost (leaving only irrational participants).
B) What kind of reward system can be supported for those taking the risk of being judged and/or proposing good material while not violating the rules?
Posting is its own reward.
Rationality should owe no reward, except that you are in accord with it.
In the old Symposia offshoot, paticipants could ask for a “participation” tag under their screen name. A little “contributor” tag could be made available for those who need kisses. While I agree that most folks need to be rewarded for breathing, by the time someone has put in a Academy post that is accepted, it strikes me as peculiar that they would need any additional recognition. Seems to me that a serious philosopher would be beyond pats on the back.
Then you should not post.
It is irrational to take any chance that only offers risk.
A) no one is “beyond pats on the back”, unless he is delusional.
B) Those who submit original posts (OPs), most probably don’t need extra reward beyond the right to express themselves. Those to be rewarded were those who continue; augment or critique the original in a quality manner (the “peanut gallery”).
I’m not proposing any change in the moderator system. If there’s a huge outcry or many complaints, or it’s clear the moderator is the problem, we discuss it. It’s a voluntary post, and a heap of work.
The reward is having better discussions, and being recognised as someone who can contribute. That’s all. I’m not stumping up for cash prizes or rosettes. 
Frankly if you have a half assed chance of thinking for yourself not quoting chapter and verse from better texts, but actually being creative around what you have learnt about philosophers then that is good philosophy. Everything else is mental masturbation for people who don’t like to invent, but like to follow. I know very obvious, but half the dried up ass I hear from people I could of read in a tome from 200 years ago. That’s not philosophy that’s your ability to regurgitate prose.