How long?

Here is the place for your suggestions, comments, or questions regarding the Philosophy Forums.
Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: How long?

Post by Harbal » May 12th, 2015, 3:04 pm

Scott wrote: Those kind of rule violations tend to be a symptom of one's weak argument,
I agree, I have no time for those who are simply critical and don't have anything constructive to say.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: How long?

Post by Scott » May 12th, 2015, 3:25 pm

Harbal wrote:
Scott wrote: Those kind of rule violations tend to be a symptom of one's weak argument,
I agree, I have no time for those who are simply critical and don't have anything constructive to say.
Criticism can be constructive or not, indeed.

My concern is even more specific than that. If a friend makes constructive personal criticism to a friend in everyday life (e.g. "Bobby, my dear friend, I suggest you change into your red shirt as you look much better in red.") that can be helpful. In contrast, on this site under the terms of which one uses the site, the purpose is not to exchange pleasantries or personal advice with each other. In theory, even compliments are prohibited as they are equally off-topic, let alone constructive personal criticism. The more highlighted issue is whether what is being discussed--and potentially constructively critiqued--is the issues and philosophy or other members. This site isn't for discussing each other, either positively or negatively and either constructive or not. The rules here are meant to be great rules for discussions in all walks of life. They are meant to be the rules for here. Those who wish to critique or compliment others personally, constructively or not, would be wise to find another website or another medium altogether. This site is for people who want to debate and discuss even the most controversial or disagreeable topics free from personal attacks, ad hominem arguments and other off-topic crap.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: How long?

Post by Obvious Leo » May 12th, 2015, 4:01 pm

Scott. Is it the case that ad hominem attacks are only acted upon if somebody complains, as you told me a long time ago?

Who decides what is or is not off-topic crap and what criteria are applied?

Regards Leo

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: How long?

Post by Scott » May 12th, 2015, 4:09 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:what criteria are applied?
The forum rules. The link to the forum rules is in the upper-left-hand side of every page on the forums.
Obvious Leo wrote:Who decides
The moderator looking at the report/post.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: How long?

Post by Obvious Leo » May 12th, 2015, 4:29 pm

And the answer to this question as well please.
Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. Is it the case that ad hominem attacks are only acted upon if somebody complains, as you told me a long time ago?

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: How long?

Post by Spiral Out » May 12th, 2015, 7:15 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:Do you want me to take my bat and ball and go and play elsewhere, Scott? Is that what you're trying to do? If so I suggest you first take a closer look at what I'm trying to say around the joint. There are a lot of people very interested in what I have to say, and I in turn am very interested in what they have to say about what I have to say. There is some serious high-octane philosophy going on on your website which you appear to be unaware of. It might never have crossed your mind that a philosopher might turn up one day who has actually written his own philosophy but are you quite certain that showing such a philosopher the door is such a smart idea?

Before you do something you might later on regret I suggest you consult with some of the people who are actually reading my stuff.
Perhaps a modicum of humility might serve one's cause somewhat better than this sort of high self-regard.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: How long?

Post by Obvious Leo » May 12th, 2015, 7:31 pm

Believe me, SO, I well realise that I have much to be humble about. However the fact remains that I have written a philosophy and there are a number of people here who have shown considerable interest in discussing it.

I have long ago apologised for my transgression to the complainant and I consider that the end of the matter. Obviously Scott does not but since he has made no attempt to explain why not we are surely free to draw our own conclusions.

Regards Leo

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: How long?

Post by Scott » May 12th, 2015, 8:43 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:And the answer to this question as well please.
Obvious Leo wrote:Scott. Is it the case that ad hominem attacks are only acted upon if somebody complains, as you told me a long time ago?
I don't recall saying that. Rather, such ad hominem attacks may or not be acted upon without a complaint. It mainly depends whether or not a moderator happens to stumble upon it. The forum rules instruct members to always report such rule violations, as that is the only way to be sure a moderator sees it. Thus, filing a report is the only way to be sure a moderator acts on it. For those reasons, the Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions instruct to not make broad complaints about there being posts still on the site with rule violations in them, but rather to report such posts or only to complain when a post your reported is not deleted but the report is closed.

-- Updated 12 May 2015 07:48 pm to add the following --
Obvious Leo wrote:I have long ago apologised for my transgression to the complainant and I consider that the end of the matter. Obviously Scott does not but since he has made no attempt to explain why not we are surely free to draw our own conclusions
Perhaps that was how we handled the matter for the other 20 or so "transgressions" for which you were formally warned before the most recent transgression in question. How many times should that be the process? More to the real issue, where in the forum rules does it say that repeated violations will be met with a request for an apology? It doesn't. I don't see the word apology in the forum rules at all. It says they will be met with a ban, not a request for an apology. Instead of banning you, I have put you on the moderation queue.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: How long?

Post by Obvious Leo » May 12th, 2015, 9:05 pm

Scott wrote:I don't recall saying that.
It was a long time ago on an occasion when I pleaded provocation for an ad hominem attack which had been directed at me. I even admitted to you that I didn't regard this as a good enough excuse for retaliation in kind and it was then that you pointed out that if no complaint is made then no action will be taken. That basically leaves me out in the wilderness fending for myself because such an action would be morally abhorrent to me. Nevertheless I still accept that retaliation in kind is not the right way to deal with a personal affront and by and large I manage to ignore them as they arise. However I do suggest that you read the thread in which this unfortunate fiasco began. We're not talking about a snide remark or a casual throw-away insult, which most of us can take in our stride as part of the cut and thrust of lively debate and often even quite amusing. The complainant on this occasion had hurled insults of the most malicious and derogatory kind, not just at me but also at a number of other contributors. I shouldn't have snapped back, I'll wear that and I've already apologised for it, but this selective application of the rules reflects no credit on the credibility of this forum.

Regards Leo

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: How long?

Post by Scott » May 12th, 2015, 9:19 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:this selective application of the rules reflects no credit on the credibility of this forum.
This complaint is inappropriate per the Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions. Don't complain that moderators do not take action on posts you believe are rule-breaking if you haven't reported those posts as rule-breaking.

Per the forum rules, if you reply to a post, you are personally voting that you think it is not a rule-breaking post.

-- Updated 12 May 2015 08:25 pm to add the following --
Obvious Leo wrote: I do suggest that you read the thread
That is not how to file a report because it is too inefficient a system and too error-prone. To file a report, you click the upside-down exclamation point on the upper-right-hand part of the post you wish to report. That is how you suggest a moderator read a post to see if the post is rule-violating.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: How long?

Post by Spiral Out » May 13th, 2015, 5:09 pm

I think that Scott has created fair and easy resources for members to use if they have concerns about moderator actions and to report rule-breaking posts. It seems that these resources have been under-utilized well below their full potential, which is odd since there seems to be enough of this activity outside of that resource to warrant its use.

I hope members will utilize these valuable resources more often and when necessary so that we can all improve our interactions and communication here in these forums.

Please use the link (offered again below) and the report button that Scott has provided to follow this procedure and improve the operations of this site!

Thank you.

Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Neopolitan
Posts: 1812
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 7:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The one who asks
Contact:

Re: How long?

Post by Neopolitan » May 15th, 2015, 9:42 pm

So, it seems that I am now on double secret probation. I had to conduct an experiment to find out though (and found that I am unable to send PMs). It might be appropriate to tell people that they have been awarded this sanction, and also what they done to deserve it. At the moment, the lesson I have learnt is "don't make fun of really old religious people and American foreign policy together in a post in which red font is used while warning about the possible presence of parody and sarcasm" (but please note that I only learnt that lesson when I found out I was on double secret probation).

I am willing to accept this lesson and move forward into a future that doesn't have me using red font in warning messages. Unless there was some other lesson you wished me to learn?

By the way, I do like the change from "Main Philosophy Forums" to "Argumentative Philosophy Forums".

-- Updated May 15th, 2015, 8:50 pm to add the following --

Actually, it seems that I am not on double secret probation ... ? I just chose the wrong person to send a PM to (ie someone who is actually on double secret probation, perhaps) or the PM system is flaky. I just tried again and was able to send a PM without getting a "You are sending a PM to too many recipients" - which sends a rather odd message when there is only one recipient. Nevertheless, as someone who thought they were on double secret probation, the points above still apply - you need to let people know when they've been sanctioned, otherwise we don't know whether we've been sanctioned or there's something wrong with the forum or the internet gods are using us as their playthings.

I have been throttled though, unable to send two posts in reasonably quick succession. Is that a whole of forum thing?
  • neopolitan || neophilosophical.blogspot.com

    • The one who called himself God is, and always has been - Ariel Parik

      I am just going outside and may be some time - Oates (Antarctica, 1912)

      It was fun while it lasted ...

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7135
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: How long?

Post by Greta » May 15th, 2015, 10:01 pm

It appears we have lost Leo. He sent me a message with a list of people he wished to thank for the stimulating conversation but I am holding for for a week as a "cooling off" period, just in case. Hopefully things will change.
This space left intentionally blank.

Alias
Posts: 2331
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: How long?

Post by Alias » May 16th, 2015, 11:32 am

Leo and Neo? And the uneven application of rules? And the clumsy user interface? You know, I'm fast losing reasons to stay here.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: How long?

Post by Harbal » May 16th, 2015, 2:11 pm

anyone who has spent any significant amount of time on these forums cannot have failed to become aware of the fact that there are a number of posters who, while being careful to stay within the rules, are deliberately provocative in the topics they create. They initiate discussions with the deliberate intention of eliciting an extreme reaction and then look on, all sweet and innocent, while the sucker who took the bait gets punished. I think this should be taken into account before transgressors of the rules are sentenced.

Locked