Okay, I will bite, the shit is when someone personally attacks another and not the claim they are making. I hope this is clear.
Adlerian,
“I recall that you directed some pointed remarks to the “everything’s alright” spiritual. Now they have good judgement?”
That is why the authenticity of the moderator is what matters. I do not want to be censored for rudeness from a moderator that is rude or celebrates rudeness elsewhere. I do not want to be moderated for rudeness when others are free to be rude to me. But if rudeness is consistently judged to a relatively even standard, then one knows how the game is to be played. (Substitute other adjectives for rudeness if you wish). L.A. as far as I can tell never has exhibited any of the traits that she moderates in others. Other moderators have varying degrees of hypocrisy, and dramatic inconsistencies between them. One might very well applaud a smart ass remark, another might delete it.
The question is, what kind of post is going to be celebrated here. There are ever silent readers who say to themselves, “hey, I can do that”, and then will eventually post. Those that say, “hey, I have interesting thoughts I’d like to share like that”, I propose are the ones I’d rather have here. Those that say to themselves, “hey, I’m a smart ass too”, “I can make people laugh in a meanspirited way while derailing conversation”, or “I can start some shit like that, that looks like fun”, those I’d rather not see. All in all the kinds of posts that are celebrated here are, in my mind, of the SmartassRus variety, ever drawing more of that kind.
Of course I have my ideas on why you have a nose for shit and your ability to diagnose others. 
Dunamis
aspacia,
No I meant that I get involved in a conflict when I suspect that there is something false going on. I’m sure that you recall our multiple encounters with the Muslims, right. I was my opinion that they were both part liar and part delusional. So, I go forth into battle with little pity. Honest people have nothing to worry about from me, even if they enjoy honestly lying.
Hi Aspacia
How could it be insulting? It is a sincere question. This is a philosophy site. We are fortunate to have access to the writings of such people. Why not take advantage of it? Read how Plato describes the human condition. The allegory which is not that long is translated with academic credentials. Read how Simone Weil brings it out in the excerpt presented in the link. Then lets discuss it. You may help some others to become open to thinking rather than condemning and complaining. It seems as though the ones condemning such thought are not open to considering in depth It seems to me that it is more important to learn and experience the nature of this hold of imagination rather than conceptualizing reality which considering the nature of the cave, must be illusory.
It is ironic but it seems that before contemplating reality with an open attitude, one must first become aware of what denies it through self knowledge.
Nick,
You cannot force people to hold your esteem for particular materials, especially in Mundane Babble. Don’t you think?
Dunamis
Dunamis, I’m not forcing anything but just inviting. Aspacia expressed an interest and raised a good question so I made an invitation to discuss it on the thread I started on the Religion board. That’s what it was there for.
Granted, I find it fascinating and thought provoking and enjoy sharing. I hate to just give upon these things.
Hi Nick,
At the moment, I am brain fried, but will reveiw. I have to rise early and it is time for my bubble bath. My reward after working out. Also, can you provide a valid link?
Smiles,
aspacia
Hi Aspacia
No rush especially in light of a bubble bath. The woman knows how to live. When you get the inclination click on
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=145231
The first post gives a link to the allegory itself while my second post gives the rivertext link to the essence of Simone Weil’s interpretation. It is quite thought provoking if you’re interested. If you feel open to discuss it, we’ll continue the thread.
Hello F(r)iends,
Dunamis, I am curious if you think of me as the “smart ass” the “starter of shit”. Be brutal, if necessary.
Tentative and LiquidAngel: You guys are terrible moderators. You make terrible decisions and then you make it worse by applying said decisions sparingly. You guys are the worst moderators possible because you do not have the ability to moderate. You guys are either at one extreme or at the other. You guys are unable to separate your own philosophies from the task at hand: moderation. You guys are able to make your snide comments and simultaneously free to threatten those that make similar comments. You sit back and pull the “mod card” and claim superiority over others and then delete, bully, and/or lock threads on a whim. All the while, members that are on your good side do not get such treatment while other members receive punishment or warnings. I suggest you both resign as moderators and return to your previous status as members…
Xanderman is the best moderator but sometimes he lacks the courage of his convictions. He has admitted in the past that he disagreed with his own decision while making it but still defended the decision. If only we could multiply Xanderman by five… ILP would run much smoother (even if it meant loosing neophyte like me).
Impenitent could be the best moderator in the sense that he simply does not bother to moderate. I was tremendously surprised that Imp was chosen to moderate the Philosophy section because despite his qualifications he does nothing to impede the onslaught of unphilosophical idiocy that appears on ANY section. I mean, if the goal is to let nature take its course, then Impenitent is the man. If the goal is to actually enforce rules… not so much.
As a final note: I like Tentative, LA, as members… But I can hardly respect them as moderators. I think a lot of people have lost their patience with them as moderators… It’s time for a California style removal of these governors… I vote “Yes, remove them as moderators.” Give me Schwarzenegger… Give me change.
-Thirst4Honesty
Interesting- Ben would have to decide if or to what degree ILP is a democracy. Presumably, Ben would respond with something to the effect that someone has to moderate this place, and unless you’re volunteering don’t complain…
Still, a recall poll would be interesting.
Thirst,
I am curious if you think of me as the “smart ass” the “starter of shit”. Be brutal, if necessary.
You are amphibious. I personally find most of your posts, when the topic affords it, very substantive or not particularly unkind – but you certainly can swim in the shit that others enjoy starting. If you fall short of any ideal, it would largely be due what constitutes itself as “normal” on this site. In otherwords, you’re an ILP saint, (unless the name aspacia is brought up ).
But really what I think of you isn’t the point. The point is really how to bring uniform and consistent moderation to a site that seems to many to be out of balance.
Dunamis
Thirst, good post. In that I mean… I can certainly see where you’re coming from.
I’m curious, who would you pick to replace Liquid and Tentasubtle ?
lol… provided they are insane enough to say yes.
interesting…
damned if you do… “don’t lock my thread” “don’t delete my posts” “all he does is move threads”
damned if you don’t… " he does nothing to impede the onslaught of unphilosophical idiocy that appears on ANY section."
firstly, I moderate the philosophy section and that section only…
are there specific rules that I enforce? yes, the homework and the question rules… and now the name calling rule as well…
do I have the responsibility to impede the onslaught of philosophical stupidity in that section? no
let me repeat… no
that is the point… make whatever argument you like in the philosophy section… make whatever philosophical claims and arguments you find interesting… I leave them alone to let them run their course… if others wish to respond, they will…
if some suggest that some arguments are stupid let the arguments stand or fall on their merits… that is what the debate is about… smash the arguments if you can… however, personal attacks are no longer tolerated…
if the rules are violated, I do my job…
isn’t free speech wonderful?
-Imp
Imp,
“damned if you do… “don’t lock my thread” “don’t delete my posts” “all he does is move threads””
As I stated, you are by far the lesser of two evils. You are consistent in your applause of clever derailment, and the literal interpretation of the “no questions” rule (to which the wise have come to know to include a few mindless sentences in addition to their question). If one is to choose between erraticly applied “fair” judgments and consistently applied literal ones, I choose the consistent ones. But one should perhaps note that the philosophy section did become what it has become under your ever-watchful, neutral hand.
Dunamis
I’ve moved this thread here so it can be used proactively.
Cheers
ben
What is moderation? If we are hunting for the best of it, we had best know it.
As a broad circle we can first approach moderation as the avoidance of extremes. We might see a moderator then as someone who points others away from extremes. Now then we have a different question. What is extreme? When is too much, too much? Where is the line the measures “too far” ? That line is under the influence perspective. What Fred sees as going too far may differ from what Barney sees as going to far. No matter what we do Fred and Barney are never going to see everything in the exact same way. And this is good, where would we be if there was only one perspective?
A degree of inconsistency is unavoidable. Still there is a question of how great is the degree of inconsistency.
How can we decrease inconsistencies in the moderation of ILP? First we could identify the largest inconsistencies that currently exist. What are they and where are they? So that is one possibilitiy.
Suggestions: What else could we do to help decrease inconsistencies?
I think the best approach (as already has been mentioned) is to tightly moderate the “serious” sections and leave the rest a total fucking free for all.
Phaedrus,
How do you envision tight moderation?
I don’t know- maybe Robert’s Rules of Order? I’d suggest that ad hom attacks be immediately punished and a general air of respect enforced. But that approach likely only belongs in the serious sections.
Given the unlikeliness of any moderation style we will all agree with, I go back to my previous statement: He who moderates best moderates least. Don’t mess with, edit, or delete any post except those in blatant violation of the laws (threats of bodily harm, etc).
It’s strange; when I first got here I assumed that those posting on a philosophy forum would be “enlightened” somehow, more formal, polite and restrained. That’s about as laughably far from the truth as it could get. Things are tamer on “Xbox Live.com”. 
Dear all,
Please consider this post as the official ILP position. All discussion on ILP moderating will be referred to here.
As a result of recent discussions and events, a few decisions and outcomes have been reached. They are:
-
Any discussion/comment/criticism on ILP or its staff should be made in the Help & Suggestions forum exclusively. Threads of this nature in other forums will either be moved or deleted.
-
All discussion/comment/criticism should be contructive. This can either be publicly in Help & Suggestions or in PM to a staff member. Issues with staff members themselves should be directed to ben in a PM and not in public.
-
Unconstructive criticism in the form of abusive and/or solely negative comments will be deleted. If you have a problem with a particular staff member, PM ben.
-
There is a general consensus that if rules are to be enforced, it should be done in a consistent manner. Over the next few weeks the staff will be reviewing everything that has been written on this matter to see how we can make our moderating more consistent.
-
The rules of the site could be written in a much clearer format. A new rewrite of the rules will be presented over the next few weeks.
-
Staff will discuss other issues that arose from recent threads on moderating and ILP in general and take action if necessary.
I think that’s it for now, any comments and suggestions please direct them to the ILP Utopia thread.
Cheers
Ben