Complaint

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 4:58pm

If you click on all these threads you will, perhaps, notice a few similarities. One being that all the threads originate with the same poster and the first post all begins with two or three short sentences. Either those sentences are open ended questions, or the title of the thread itself is a question and the first post is simply a couple of sentences expounding upon anticipated replies.

I complain about this because I can recall doing the same thing at one time and having my thread removed along with receiving a PM from a moderator stating that such short topic starters were not allowd in the Philosophy forum. If I wanted to start a thread there I had to present an idea and develop (to some degree) within the first post.

In fact the PM I received from a mod stated thus:

"hello GCT

you know the rules, we aren’t supposed to simply ask questions in the philosophy thread… could you please edit your question so that your opinion (one or two declarative sentences, not simply questions…) on the language question appears before the question is asked?

otherwise I’ll have to move the post… "

I ask you now, has this rule changed, or will these threads I have listed above be removed in the near future?

Thank you.

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 5:01pm

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=158661

There is another thread. Same problem as mentioned above.

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 5:04pm

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=158649

Quote someone else from another website and then just ask for opinion… is this allowed as well?

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 5:04pm

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=158653

different poster, same problem as what i first asked about.

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 5:06pm

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=158637

Hooray for asking 27 million questions in a row. Well, at least a mod replied… with another, shorter question.

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 5:08pm

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=158664

To be quite honest, I have no idea what that post has to do with Philosophy.

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 5:09pm

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=158662

Seriously… wtf?

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 5:12pm

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=158343

I think this is some quasi haiku or something.

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 5:13pm

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=158500

Is probably too deep for me to understand… or could be that the original post consist of a picture and two lines of text and doesnt explain or clarify anything.

GateControlTheory · July 28, 2007, 5:19pm

All the above given examples come from the first page.

In the past I have been confronted with charges of having standards for the site that are, arguably, fair, but that I myself should do more to help. After all, the mods are volunteers with busy lives of their own.

For that reason I hereby request permission to be made a moderator at ILP. I have plenty of free time, and I can spend three to six hours a day helping to improve the quality of discussions here at ILP as well as making sure people adhere to the rules.

Thank you.

Impenitent · July 28, 2007, 9:33pm

GateControlTheory:

If you click on all these threads you will, perhaps, notice a few similarities. One being that all the threads originate with the same poster and the first post all begins with two or three short sentences. Either those sentences are open ended questions, or the title of the thread itself is a question and the first post is simply a couple of sentences expounding upon anticipated replies.

I complain about this because I can recall doing the same thing at one time and having my thread removed along with receiving a PM from a moderator stating that such short topic starters were not allowd in the Philosophy forum. If I wanted to start a thread there I had to present an idea and develop (to some degree) within the first post.

In fact the PM I received from a mod stated thus:

"hello GCT

you know the rules, we aren’t supposed to simply ask questions in the philosophy thread… could you please edit your question so that your opinion (one or two declarative sentences, not simply questions…) on the language question appears before the question is asked?

otherwise I’ll have to move the post… "

I ask you now, has this rule changed, or will these threads I have listed above be removed in the near future?

Thank you.

the rule has changed…

-Imp

GateControlTheory · July 29, 2007, 6:53am

Impenitent:

GateControlTheory:

If you click on all these threads you will, perhaps, notice a few similarities. One being that all the threads originate with the same poster and the first post all begins with two or three short sentences. Either those sentences are open ended questions, or the title of the thread itself is a question and the first post is simply a couple of sentences expounding upon anticipated replies.

I complain about this because I can recall doing the same thing at one time and having my thread removed along with receiving a PM from a moderator stating that such short topic starters were not allowd in the Philosophy forum. If I wanted to start a thread there I had to present an idea and develop (to some degree) within the first post.

In fact the PM I received from a mod stated thus:

"hello GCT

you know the rules, we aren’t supposed to simply ask questions in the philosophy thread… could you please edit your question so that your opinion (one or two declarative sentences, not simply questions…) on the language question appears before the question is asked?

otherwise I’ll have to move the post… "

I ask you now, has this rule changed, or will these threads I have listed above be removed in the near future?

Thank you.

the rule has changed…

-Imp

understood.

GateControlTheory · July 29, 2007, 7:34am

Another complaint. After being informed of the rule change I post several short questions in the philosophy section only to be met by the rude remarks of one “Comfortably Numb” .

Have the rules regarding the use of Ad Hominem been changed, or will Comfortably Numb be dealt with accordingly?

Mr_Reasonable · July 29, 2007, 9:24am

You’re twisted man!!!

comfortably_numb · July 29, 2007, 10:19am

Yes. GCT. You are a twisted man.

You posted dozens and dozens of one-line nonsensical posts screwing up the boards. I answered all of them tellling you how childish you were and now you make a complain about me to the moderators?

You’re an evil two faced snake GCT. FTR, this guy runs done ILP on other forums then comes back here acting like he’s just come from church.

Ban me if you want. I admit did call him childish, immature, having a dummy spit etc on each of his nonsensical posts and I did tell him to fuck off screwing up the boards but… just beware this guy is a two faced snake.

You should already know this from his past dummy spits and drama queen antics.

Mr_Reasonable · July 29, 2007, 10:24am

I think someone needs to get laid. This is the most blatant display of frustration I’ve seen on the internet ever. At least SOME of it has to be sexual.

comfortably_numb · July 29, 2007, 12:26pm

I’m feeling a bit cheeky tonight and would LOOOOVE to say something about what you said but I will bite my tongue… (ouch!!!)

The pity is, GCT can post intelligent and reasonable stuff when he wants to but he has this thing about the good old days of ILP and laments the fact that it has never lived up to his standards ever since.

It gets so boring because it’s not like ILP is the only discussion boards out there but he keeps coming back and… the record starts over…

BA3OB_H.C · July 29, 2007, 1:06pm

N.Vazov

GateControlTheory · July 29, 2007, 1:12pm

Everything i posted was a legitimate question, as compared to those posts linked in my complaint. If some seem nonsensical, well I did invert some of the questions from other posters… but they are different threads and will have contain different discussions.

I submit that you are far more troubled by my posts than anyone else, and the fact that you engaged in insults as prohibited by board rules tells me that whatever it is about my posts that irks you, it has little to do with guidelines.

You have taken this all far too personally. Go outside… get some fresh air.

You are referring to my post at ILO. I believe the rules there allow such posts. That stated, my anger at a particular poster at ILP, as expressed in the ILO post, and my complaint thread (and the response) are two entirely separate issues.

Asking for standards that i fail to live up to makes me a two faced snake? I have never lied or misled anyone at ILP about anything that i am aware of. I think what you mean to say that my failures only make me human, or at least, no different from any other ILP visitor.

So you posted your vitriol out of boredom?

I can say this no clearer than i have said before. I love ILP, but I think there is room for improvement and some more stringent standards should be adopted. So long as those standards are applied fairly, then I would have no problem with what goes on here. If I break a rule, then I should be banned, as should all rule breakers. However, I would find the irony to be quite delicious, to ban the gadfly at a site called ILovePhilosophy.

If you want to solicit me, do so privately. I assure you I will respond.

This will be my last public reply to you, as I cannot explain myself further without repeating myself, and your unhappiness with me is not my fault, rather, you should blame your misplaced hero worship.

Thank you and good day.

comfortably_numb · July 29, 2007, 1:13pm

Do you support GCT screwing up the boards by posting dozens and dozens of nonsense, one-line posts in the philosophy and social forums? Are you defending that childish behavior?