life isnt always so simple magnus
You are right. The biggest problem with this supposed philosophy forum is the fact that the non-philosophers are more than the philosophers. The non-philosophers are the absolute majority in a forum named “I Love Philosophy”.
Would you like to be an ILP moderator? I would support you. But keep in mind that here the non-philosophy-interested are more than the philosophy-interested.
Every project must have a single purpose. A multi-purpose project is either a project with a single purpose made out of many smaller sub-purposes (is that a word at all?) or it is a project with a blurred vision. A project must have a clear purpose or it’s doomed to fail.
You can disscuss moderation, of course, but you can’t do so without assigning a purpose to this forum. I am merely suggesting to assign it consciously. That’s what this thread is about, isn’t it?
I would support a moderator Magnus Anderson too. But does he want to be a moderator?
Magnus said: “This is a philosophy forum”. I say: “This should be a philosophy forum”!
OK, maybe the mission of provoking thought is outdated.
Maybe the “mental rapport” between the title of the forum “I Love Philosophy” and the mental representation contained within the depths of the reader’s mind is dead.
But at least those concepts “stick out like dog’s balls” as to what the original purpose was getting at. I got an idea…why don’t we start a thread that helps us decide the purpose of ILP - that way we can keep this one for “A Discussion of Moderation”. I don’t know(sarcasm), what do you think?
Otherwise, what would I know. There are clearly concepts being thrown around in this community that miss their mark by going over peoples heads, under peoples heads >> to the left, to the right, into another dimension…etc.
Summarizing and paraphrasing from this page: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=167245#p2056441
We come up with something like the following:
ILovePhilosophy is devoted to the discussion of philosophy in its broadest sense. Beginners and sophisticates, serious and frivolous, are all welcome. Philosophy must enshrine ideas; all properly expressed questions fall under its purview. The distinction between radicalism and antagonism is hazy. Its tone, quality, and utility as a haven for the ideas it cherishes are defined by the actions of its members. We are, first and foremost, a community, and as such, we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. When that community falters, so does ILP’s mission. Its value stems from its members and the ideas they bring with them.
What part of this do you want to change?
The purpose indicated is of a general-purpose nature - is this not suitable? if so, how? Remember, this is a forum, not a business.
Your “first thing”:
- This is already answered by the name of this forum: “I Love Philosophy”. So the first thing is unmistakable: Philosophy.
If the leadership of this forum does not agree with this, then those who are interested in philosophy can either shoot the leaders dead (that would be the WWW Angry solution) or move to other forums.
Your “second thing”:
- The set of rules must be based on the purpose of the forum (see: “first thing”), i.e. if a text is obviously not meant philosophically, then either this text must be moved (to “Rant” or “Non-Philosophical Chat”) or the poster must be warned or banned. In 2017 this was still the case, as you should know.
Your “third thing”:
- The moderators must be convinced of both the purpose (see: “first thing”) and the set of rules oriented to the purpose (see: “second thing”).
All this is basically a very simple matter. But if the ILP leadership doesn’t go along, then we can bury this thing (resp. Magnus’ "three things").
We can not put all of this on the ILP leadership as it is not the ILP leadership that created the problems in the first place.
I am going to get a little creative in this post but at the same time use no style and technique - WARNING: Some sarcasm will be used but it won’t be too graphic in nature!!!
Clearly, bad behavior created the problems that called for a renewed look at moderation.
I don’t go and complain to my mother every time I have a problem in my adult life, actually come to think of it I never complain to her. I don’t complain to the ILP leadership each time I have a problem on the forum. As stated earlier in the thread there is functionality built into the forum system to ignore other users and that functionality was built with the expected self-control of an adult in mind. If anything that I have said in this thread has come across as mean then the problem of the offended does not lay with me - it instead lays with an oversensitive nature of the person who becomes offended with me in the first place - this is the internet after all and the internet has trolls. We have been teaching our children about this sort of stuff for a while now. To add to that, I don’t remember calling people names for that matter either.
Even if I may have bordered the rules in the past, I have remained within the rules of this forum. I have been abused by a couple of people on this forum and I think they talk a lot of rubbish in between their insightful moments but I take little offense. When I arrived here at ILP I was met by a number of people that wanted to convert me to their ways of thinking(you know? mini-me makers) and they seemed to get upset when I would not submit - cry me a river. I would never expect another human being to become a mini-me. The other thing I have noticed is that some users of the forum like to name drop as if they are writing a thesis - perhaps these people look down upon those who do not regularly quote some old dead philosopher - again, cry me a river - this is not an elitist book club. Did the first philosopher name drop? No, he/she may not have even known how to write << keep that in mind. Since they were the first philosopher who the hell could they quote. So yes, it is pretty clear that no one has even agreed upon the definition of philosophy on this forum - many users seem to have a very skewed viewpoint but push their ideas anyway(pushing a few ideas around is what we are here for - or getting feedback on those ideas or giving feedback - these are all things that we should do in a balanced way).
Not everything in philosophy has been done as some people would have you believe. Do you honestly believe we know everything about existence - the old dead philosophers are not here to help us out with that. But here is the thing, there are new philosophers that live today, and perhaps they are unrecognizable because they don’t speak the outdated arcane language of those long since dead. I guarantee also that these new philosophers will not always say things that are universally agreeable. In fact, it turns out that these new philosophers and old philosophers have something in common with us lowly humans - yeah, it turns out they had to use the toilet on occasion, just like us, they had to wipe their nose on occasion, just like us, they had to…I am sure you get the picture. What I am saying is this, philosophers are just people. It would seem a lot of people forget this when they decide to worship their hero.
Essentially we can not say that there are no philosophers on this forum - we can not say that there are philosophers on this forum. What on earth is a non-philosopher? Someone who is not familiar with, I don’t know…Nietzsche?
A purpose had been given for the forum before I arrived here and in that purpose, exclusion was not exercised. There are people here whose English is awful but as a native English speaker, I do not exclude them. In fact, I welcome them with open arms. There are native speakers who don’t even understand how to use their own language and have very poor logic and don’t read things properly or understand what it is to analyze but again we welcome those too. Extremists have graced our presence at times too. Yep, this is not some cult or elitist club, it is a public forum.
A PUBLIC FORUM
As long as that cock sucking meth-addict ww3 remains on this forum, it is not a philosophy forum.
Instead it is a forum where opinions and politics you disagree with, you should “put a bullet into the head” of whom you’re debating.
And Carleas and smears defend this shit?
Fuck all of you putting up and tolerating this. You are all the reason and cause why USA and Western Civilization is falling apart.
Cock sucker should have been banned as soon as he said it.
Instead weeks and months go by, Carleas does nothing, Moderators do nothing. What a joke.
I will be leaving until ww3 is permanently banned from this website.
And as long as he stays, I encourage people to threaten real life violence and death threats against those you disagree with.
Because that’s where we’re at. And you all tolerate, as long as it benefits you. Fuck you all.
Well then I wouldn’t say it…
Now this is how the big lie works, just say it over and over until people start believing it. Now I don’t respond to every attack or accusation or lie that I see on the internet or about me because well, these people we’re dealing with here have serious reasoning and critical thinking deficiencies, its like debating with a drunkard, its pointless. Now I see you bought in to that delusional fascist maniacs lie and now somehow think my solution is to just kill people who I disagree with. That is hardly the case and the furthest from the truth. The fact is, I don’t really agree with anyone here. I enjoy reasoned discussions. There are typically bits and pieces I will agree with, but for the most part disagreements stand out more so than agreements whenever we discuss things philosophically. As such and I’m sure it is the case with most of us here, that most of us notice the disagreement quite a bit more than agreement. But this process of disagreeing is what helps sharpen our thoughts and that is wholly encouraged by the likes of myself, for one.
Now, with that being said you are more than welcome to read the thread in which UR WRONG has essentially lost his shit over, - that being “The Reckoning” -
To recap, essentially with the insurrection and continued support of Trump I declared that a line was drawn, that these Trump supporting maniacs formerly known as Republicans are a threat to our lives, which means we as a democracy loving nation need to draw the line as well and provide absolute intolerance towards the sentiment that these delusional freaks push with their lies, hate and very real threats to our democracy. This does mean that I would have no problem shooting a maniac quasi nazi (Aka Trumptard) right in the head and not think twice about it, as these folks are way beyond reasoning with. There is no real discussion with them, and if you’ve ever engaged with one you’ve engaged with them all, as they all buy into the same lies, delusions hook line and sinker, follow the same predictable pathology and are a very real threat to our democracy and our lives as already shown.
Nullius in verba; video enim te ipso.
Just keep describing yourself over and over again. And keep making yourself out to be innocent like you did when you accused Uccisore of what you must be accusing yourself of: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 0#p2597508 .
And ILP is not the “Wild West” (“only a dead Indian is a good Indian” etc.): “only an ILP member with a bullet in his or her head is a good ILP member”. Cf.: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 5#p2802749 .
No one has put all of this on the ILP leadership. But the ILP leadership is the ILP leadership. You know? And a leadership does not mean nothing, as you are suggesting here.
It was the ILP leadership that ignored the problems in the first place.
There used to be requests for moderation before, but they always came to nothing, because the motto “keep it up” was always stronger. Now it is even worse than before, important moderators are gone, and some people have once again noticed that the moderation is too poor.
It is no longer possible to talk about many topics even approximately, because one must count at any time on being trolled and stalked by some nutcase.
OK, I respect the points you are making. I still stand by what I am saying and would prefer to meet in the middle with you since whether it is obvious or not, I actually respect you. I too, do not appreciate any sort of abusive behavior but I guess I am just more tolerant of it. I see abusive behavior on both sides - not from you, however. I also understand where both sides are coming from. I may not agree with the more extreme behavior coming in from both sides but why should I let either side off of the hook? I really don’t agree with a lot of what UR is saying and in this thread, his extreme behavior was more numerous in the count. Perhaps this is why he lost it with me because he thought that I was one of the gang - those guys don’t care much for me but neither does UR.
Seems you have no idea what you’re talking about. I listed good points against Uccisore who wasn’t very “becoming” of a moderator. I’m not a moderator nor does “making myself out to be innocent” - innocent of what? Yes, I’ll kill fucking fascists. That I am guilty of condoning, and proudly so. But killing people I disagree with? No thanks. Accusing Uccisore of what I am doing? That doesn’t make any sense. Who are you anyway? Someone who has multiple accounts.
Some thoughts from reading this thread (numbered by which of my original questions they go to):
[1] It is often easier to identify wrong answers than it is to identify right answers, and some wrong answers to the question of who should be a moderator present themselves pretty clearly in this thread. Judging how a person will moderate based on how they engage in discussion isn’t perfect, but posts that look like a mere emotional reaction suggest moderation that will look like an emotional reaction.
[2] To Peter’s point, I think banning should be taken in the context of the near absolute anonymity that the internet provides. Banning a username isn’t really banning a person. The punishment of banning is, in practice, just stripping someone of their name. That’s actually unpleasant for anyone who wants to build a reputation or develop relationships, so it works as a weak punishment. It also serves a purpose something like hanging the bodies of thieves at crossroads, warning passers-by that there is a state that enforces its laws. The weakness in these justifications is that, as a punishment, it tends to hit hardest on the best users: it leverages attachment to the community, while bad-faith trolls can just assume a new identity and continue. And as with rotting corpses, it communicates force more than justice, not necessarily a reassuring message.
[3] Magnus, though I actually think a fuzzy purposes is a positive for a pluralistic community, you’re right that making purpose clear is a good way of thinking about the question (and I appreciate encode’s draft statement of purpose). Indeed, setting aside practical considerations, forcing people to stop and reflect on the purpose of each post before they submit it would probably solve 90% of the problems we have here. encode, I’ll try to give you a fuller reply on the specifics of your draft today or tomorrow as time allows.
It’s the other way around: Uccisore listed good points against you (and Carleas confirmed it too). I have also read the threads quoted back then - yea, back then already, because I wanted to know why you spread so much lies.
What lies? I called out Uccisore for spewing insults which went against the rules for the forum, that I clearly pointed out. There’s no lies there and your posts to me seem to be nothing but trollish behavior. This is confirmed by your projection of lies while you indeed lie yourself about pretending “Carleas” confirming anything as a “good point” written by Uccisore in that thread. Maybe you should go troll some weaker minded victims such as URWRONG if you have a desire to get off on spreading some diseased version of sociopathy that you may suffer from.
Do not play the innocent again. Or do you want to deny that there was this dispute with the moderator Uccisore? Should I quote all relevant posts from that time here? That would go beyond the scope here. Besides, you know exactly what I mean, only you do not want to admit that once again.
I am also not primarily about you, but about the topic here, in which you play only a minor role - but nonetheless as a Wild West cowboy. 
