A misuse would be nearly impossible to discover? Logical rules are better known than “ad hominem” rules. So a misuse is easier to discover by using logical rules than it is by using “ad hominem” rules. “Ad hominem” rules have more room for interpretation than logical rules. Thus ILP needs more quality, more intelligence and careful attention:
Let’s have a third interim result for the question: “Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?”.
[size=120]We have 67% for “yes”, 24% for “no”, and 9% for “I don’t know”.[/size]
Please vote!
The first interim result from January, 15, 2015:
The second interim result from May, 27, 2015:
Within 3 (three) days 6% more for “yes” (61% => 67%) …! 
Please read the last post of this page!
Arminius, how are ad hominem rules differ from logical ones? Can’t they be subsumed under logic as well? Is not propriety a function of ascending loyalty into the realm of desired social intercourse? (Without which the mutual trust in the virtues of honesty could not sustain)
For example by political correctness, because political correctness has nothing to do with logical correctness, often even not with correctness.
They can, yes, but they often are not or at least not correctly but e.g. political correctly.
The logical rules should be the main rules, and the ad hominem rules should be subsumed under them.
Unfortunately propriety is often misused, and not seldom caused by “ad hominem” rules, although they are wanted to prevent misuse, but they do not satisfactorily work, because misusers can easily circumvent “ad hominem” rules and nevertheless be in violation of them by using other methods, especially such methods I mentioned several times in this thread.
The logical rules should be the main rules, and the ad hominem rules should be the subordinated rules. Such regulations strengthen both logic and propriety. They lead to the lack of people who like ad hominems.
You mean the lack of regulations lead to the rationale which are the cause célèbre of the goals of the users of ad hominems?
I mean if the “ad hominem” rules do not satisfactorily work, then there is already a lack of regulation, at least in an applied sense.
Ok, I understand.
There is little love of philosophy on ILP. Essentially we have a collective of disempowered individuals who are trying to empower themselves in whatever way they see appropriate (Mods also exhibit this behaviour). Out of this, power plays and pecking orders evolve. An individual will subsequently develop behaviours that seek to protect their own reputation and discredit the reputation of others (all are guilty of this including yours truly). People then become delusional and begin to fabricate narratives within their own minds which portray themselves as all powerful super-philosophical heroes and others as idiotic villains that need to be vanquished (preferably through the use of magic philosophical powers).Things rapidly degenerate into a war; where all’s fair in Love and Philosophy.
I voted “NO”… but, if I had my way, everyone but me would be banned for life. 
Funny how trolls so well describe their own behavior.
Yes, it is funny how well they do that. Do you have something to contribute Fixed Cross?
I encourage you to vote on my “Am I a Troll” thread.
You frame this as a comment on ILP, but you seem to just be describing humanity as a whole. ILP can’t help it that humans are our primary audience.
Thank you very much Carleas, you are the first person to share this view with me and understand this view. Indeed, it is humanity as a whole (I include myself as part of humanity). Often we as individuals think we are not subject to the absurdities of humanity (we think we have a different narrative). So I am not targeting ILP (singling out), I am targeting (singling out) humanity. This is what distinguishes us from animals.
So, naturally we will never be satisfied with ILP moderation (until we change our own narrative).
One example of the problem with the ILP rules and iis moderation is the permaban of Lys (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=188302). ILP has double standards. There are so many other ILP members that should have been banned but not Lys and some others who have been banned. I am again disappointed by ILP.
Yes, but another fact is that many users do not know anything about that poll (viewtopic.php?f=7&t=187220).
Carleas, do you really know what Lys “knew” at that moment and what “her intent was”?
I explicitly warned her in PM about the sanction for her behaviour, and she repeated it egregiously.
Moderators have to respond to those who have reported posts! Why do they sometimes not respond to them, although the reasons for the reported posts are obvious and absolutely justified?
Hmmmmm, let me think about this.
ILP bans a few people merely for the (dangerous) ideas they present and talk about, which seems very anti philosophical, but then the staff allow other (cool kid club) posters to post death threats, veiled death threats, countless ad homs, derails, and all other kinds of nonsense. Seems like you need to be “cool” and then the rules don’t apply to you.
Just don’t be too philosophical.
The conclusion is obvious.
Yes
Why does it take forever for a comment to be approved? and if a comment isn’t approved, how is one to know why it wasn’t approved?