One of the nice things about a moderated forum is that posts that don’t belong are removed from their threads, thereby ensuring higher quality discussions.
However, it seems as of late that a fair amount of deletions have been contested. While I do believe that we ought trust our moderators, they are human and capable of error. In this spirit, I’d like to propose a ‘knock it off’ section where deleted posts are moved with a small justification for the deletion. That way they do not negatively affect the discussion at hand, yet it also removes the whole censorship concept. The posts will still be accessable, so people can’t cry unfair. Also, since the reasons for the move will be explained, it gives the original poster a chance to write a second draft of the post if the ideas were good, but the style was unacceptable.
For the record, mods do already have to justify their removing a post to the other staff if it is not plainly clear from the post itself. Posts are not deleted, only moved to quarantine.
Not just individual members, but the community as a whole. Also, by allowing other posters to see what is and is not acceptable I think it will 1) create a better standard for what is and is not acceptable behaviour and 2) since moved posts will still be visible to the community as a whole if segments disagree with the moderators they can bring it back into the discussion.
Xunzian - my personal view is that this is not a good idea. It will only lead to more nonsense like that we have just seen with a recent banning. You evidently wish a forum in which to allow the mebership-at-large to confront and contest moderator decisions as a regular feature. I do not see what constructive purpose this serves.
This site is what it is because of an evidently benign dictatorship. Why fuck it up? This is just a thinly-veiled attempt at allowing even more spleen-venting. The “instructive” purpose that you propose would be minimal at best.
I dislike the idea of running to teacher when my feelings get hurt. While there needs to be some moderation, I feel that the current system is too easily misapplied which leads to unequal application of the rules.
Since we are, by and large, a self-selecting and enlightened group, I don’t think that heavy moderation is necessary. Remove the trolls, but just to make sure that they are trolls, let people see and remember their words.
Then there can be no cry of persecution and unfairness.
The absence of cries of persecution and unfairness is not the same as the absence of persecution and fairness. We can cry about anything. And we do.
There would be more cries of persecution and unfairness if perceived examples of these were given center stage.
If the rules are subject to interpretation by humans as they are applied, there will be unevenness of those applications. This is the very reason to allow humans to interpret and apply them. It is not a defect, but a virtue.
We are not self-selecting, but are here at the pleasure of the site owner.
We are self-selecting, in that the people who choose to come to a forum called Ilovephilosophy tend to be people with philosophical interests.
If we were here at the pleasure of the site owner, it would be an invitation-only message board.
I, personally, find sweeping things under the rug distasteful. I also think that 90% of the time when a post is deleted, the poster realizes that it was stupid. But there is that grey 10%. Now, we can either strive to educate those who mistakenly break the rules, or we can ignore them and hope they go away. However, exclusionary practices (and I do feel the current policy is exclusionary) narrow the perspective.
On a philosophy website, that is a very bad thing.
Xunzian - those who break the rules are educated - we have seen examples of this recently.
I understand your definition of “self-selecting”. In this context, it is not a complete one. I do not wish to get into a pissing match with you over this. But not everyone’s “tastes” can be accommodated. This is a matter of logic, and should not be mistaken for any rendering of the site’s official position, which it is certainly not my place to promulgate.
Any perspective that is not in some sense “narrow” ceases to be a perspective. Again, this is only a matter of logic, and not in any way meant as apologetics.
Nick_A explains here why in his opinion it was annoying content rather than rule breaking which was the cause of his banning. It is something else to consider as far as the knock it off suggestion.
