Philosophy Discussion Forums

I have been a member for 8 days and have made 16 posts. However, all my posts still go to moderation and I am still unable to post links. This is making it increasingly difficult for me to participate in conversations, as the lag time between when I type a reply and when that reply gets posted is such that by the time my reply is posted, other people have posted after me, and since my post appears as if it had been posted when it was submitted, rather than when it was approved, it's easy for my contributions to the conversation to be lost.

I understand why new members need to have their posts moderated and why they are not allowed to post links at first, but according to the site policies, I should be past both those milestones by now.

In addition, I would like to request that the site be changed so that posts appear in the order they were approved, rather than in the order in which they were submitted. That way new members' voices don't get drowned out by the veteran members who don't have to wait for post approval.

Hang in there, Andrian. Your woes are only temporary. It was very frustrating, yes, for me too, but after a while of freedom posting, you don't even look back. As we used to say in my native country, in my native language, when a little boy hurt his finger or knee, we used to console the crying child with these words: "you'll have this all forgotten by the time you join the army." (Compulsory army training and service for every male in those days. Women had no such social burden to bear then.)

If you are still frustrated, remember: the little boys did not even understand the concept imparted in the consolation, so nothing's lost in translation. You remain frustrated, much like the little boy remained in pain. As the saying goes, "sayings go". My attempt at consoling you is just as ineffectual as the saying we repeated to little boys.

It seems I'm finally out of the trial period now. Not sure if I can post links yet, but at least my posts are showing up immediately now. Perhaps the site policies have changed to require 20 posts before they're automatically approved? If so, then the informational posts ought to be updated to reflect this.

If you're going to have a policy on a site, you'd better stick to it and communicate it clearly, especially if you want to attract new members and have them stick around.

Andrian wrote:t seems I'm finally out of the trial period now. Not sure if I can post links yet, but at least my posts are showing up immediately now. Perhaps the site policies have changed to require 20 posts before they're automatically approved? If so, then the informational posts ought to be updated to reflect this.

From the Forum Rules page:

"Other notes: As a new trial member, your posts will be held for moderation until you have at least 20 approved on-topic posts. You will also be unable to send PMs. All new topics for all members even those with more than 20 posts are held for moderation (except those by moderators and contributors)."

From the Site Policies Regarding Links and URLs page:

"Members with less than 10 posts or who have been registered for less than 3 days are automatically blocked from posting links."

The information about links may need to be updated if this rule has since changed.

Thanks for your feedback!

Spiral Out wrote:You will also be unable to send PMs.

Yeah, I remember I went ballistic on this back in the early days. I was raising hell, the site being illy organized, and a moderator wanted to calm me, I guess (I'll never learn what he or she wanted to tell me), and said, "Send me a private message," which I could not, as I was blocked from doing it due to not having the requirements to send PMFOs. I was incredibly angry, I remember. The frustration. The idiocy. The Catch 22. That the only way the moderators could help me was for me to do something I could not do, and they were blind to it.

At the time I felt that the site needed to update its message systems and user-friendliness. Now I don't give two hoots, I enjoy the structure and the programming engine's workings and operations.

If I have any problems with the site now, it's that it's turned away from being a philosophy forum and became a bitching forum between theists and non-theists. It's sad, but it's evolution for you. I think I had like three conversations / debates and altogether 7 posts about philosophical matters in the last two months, the rest of the over hundred was spent on spending a whole bunch of mental and emotional energies in vain trying to influence the uninfluenceable.

To me this is very sad. Getting philosophy shut (and shot) down because a horde of fundamentalists descended on us who'd vowed to, and succeeded to, destroy our little corner of philosophy.

Debating about god on a philosophy forum is a bit like reading or writing a crime story. It has all the elements of a good story or good philosophy: character development, logic, style, argumenting, storyline, anecdotal evidence, respectively, AND they both feel really good; but both crime writing and atheist-theist fighting are bastardization to good literature and to good thinking.

When you join this group, you have to prepare yourself to be frustrated. You will be taking sides because philosophy deals mostly with controversial topics. You can't help but defend your view whatever it may be about an established ideology. It is like every action has an opposite reaction - positive/negative something like that. It depends on the trend of thoughts of the opposing minds.

Josefina1110 wrote:When you join this group, you have to prepare yourself to be frustrated.

You're right. But they don't state this in the forum rules!! Neglective rule-making.

Josefina1110 wrote:You will be taking sides because philosophy deals mostly with controversial topics. You can't help but defend your view whatever it may be about an established ideology. It is like every action has an opposite reaction - positive/negative something like that. It depends on the trend of thoughts of the opposing minds.

Generally you are right, but there are exceptions. The exceptions being that once in a while a debating partner (I or the opposition) will give in and change our stance. The other exception is to this exception: the debaters about god never yield.

Some philosophical topics are not controversially contentious. Like "What is art".

Actually, when the debate tries to change the opposite side, the trend is a win or lose situation. Recently we have witnessed debates of candidates in the political arena. Each side claimed to have won. I think they determined that they won when they get more applause or when the parties themselves felt they have given more facts with no direct rebuttal. But actually, in the political arena, the people are the judge and not the candidates who are debating. In this situation, it's like in boxing, the winner won by unanimous decision. On the debate about "god," there are some people who yield to the other side for one reason or another. There are believers who leave their faith and there are many others who become believers. There are those who believe in God but get angry with God and then abandon their belief. There are those who are touched by actions of believers and they acquire faith in God. So I cannot agree with you that debaters about god never yield. There are those who are identified as Christian evolutionists like modern Christian scientists. They believe in God but they also believe in evolution as God's method of creating living things.

Andrian wrote:It seems I'm finally out of the trial period now. Not sure if I can post links yet, but at least my posts are showing up immediately now.

I'm guessing that this won't last. You should know that if you should annoy one of the many mods, your status can be returned to that of a trial member, and again your posts will be held for review before appearing on the forum.

Don't ask me how I know this, because this is hush hush top secret classified need to know only information which is not revealed until you have 23,938,821 posts, or perhaps just one post that pisses off a mod.

Renee wrote: It's sad, but it's evolution for you. I think I had like three conversations / debates and altogether 7 posts about philosophical matters in the last two months, the rest of the over hundred was spent on spending a whole bunch of mental and emotional energies in vain trying to influence the uninfluenceable.

To me this is very sad. Getting philosophy shut (and shot) down because a horde of fundamentalists descended on us who'd vowed to, and succeeded to, destroy our little corner of philosophy.

I post regularly and I haven't seen any of this. Stay away from the Philosophy of Religion forums and similar. Don't waste your time on it.

Post some interesting non-religious philosophy. Let me know where.

Toadny wrote: I post regularly and I haven't seen any of this. Stay away from the Philosophy of Religion forums and similar. Don't waste your time on it.

Philosophy of science is full of Darwin-bashing, moral philosophy is gripped with fundamentalists, and metaphysics is nothing but religion to begin with. I know it's not Christian, but may as well be some worship stuff, it has nothing to do with reality as we like to think of reality.

Toadny wrote: Post some interesting non-religious philosophy. Let me know where.

I made a pretty original post I think on "what is art", but it teeters on the supernatural realm, my opinion on it is so heavily dependent on intuitive perception.

Also, a new member, Andrian, porposed a topic which I answered and it was abandoned by everyone else. It had to do with... oh, if only my memory was not so bad... oh, yes, the free will conundrum vis-a-vis heaven. Free will will produce evil, but there is no evil in heaven, so either heaven contains no souls with free will, or else there is evil in heaven. I refuted that in one argument, and nobody ever even looked at it afterward, not even Andrian.

Then there was the normal refutation of "free will in a causative world". I also proved there is no choice for anyone in any matter.

Thanks, Toadny, I'll check out your posts now, maybe there is some gold there that I can sink my teeth into.

Renee wrote: Also, a new member, Andrian, porposed a topic which I answered and it was abandoned by everyone else. It had to do with... oh, if only my memory was not so bad... oh, yes, the free will conundrum vis-a-vis heaven. Free will will produce evil, but there is no evil in heaven, so either heaven contains no souls with free will, or else there is evil in heaven. I refuted that in one argument, and nobody ever even looked at it afterward, not even Andrian.

I did reply. If you look at that thread, mine is the most recent response. To bring things back around to the original topic, one reason you might not have noticed my response was because it took quite a long time to get my post approved.

Andrian wrote: I did reply. If you look at that thread, mine is the most recent response. To bring things back around to the original topic, one reason you might not have noticed my response was because it took quite a long time to get my post approved.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll look at it presently.

-- Updated December 14th, 2016, 6:55 pm to add the following --

Thanks, Andrian!! I responded in kind. Please review (at your leisure and inclination. After all, we all have a free will to decide to look at that thread again or not.)

Ormond wrote:

Andrian wrote:It seems I'm finally out of the trial period now. Not sure if I can post links yet, but at least my posts are showing up immediately now.

I'm guessing that this won't last. You should know that if you should annoy one of the many mods, your status can be returned to that of a trial member, and again your posts will be held for review before appearing on the forum.

Don't ask me how I know this, because this is hush hush top secret classified need to know only information which is not revealed until you have 23,938,821 posts, or perhaps just one post that pisses off a mod.

I doubt any moderator can put anyone under moderation. I think only Scott can do that. What I can do is zap users with warnings which don't do anything really. I have been zapped myself with a warning issued to me by a contributor and so you may want to worry about them too.
If Scott looks at your record and sees all the warnings, then that may also influence his decision as to what to do with you. Repeat offenders may never be able to post again in this forum without being moderated but some type of offenses such as doing what is perceived as "ad hominem attacks" seem to be the surest and fastest way to get back on the list of users under moderation.

Andrian wrote:I have been a member for 8 days and have made 16 posts. However, all my posts still go to moderation and I am still unable to post links. This is making it increasingly difficult for me to participate in conversations, as the lag time between when I type a reply and when that reply gets posted is such that by the time my reply is posted, other people have posted after me, and since my post appears as if it had been posted when it was submitted, rather than when it was approved, it's easy for my contributions to the conversation to be lost.

I understand why new members need to have their posts moderated and why they are not allowed to post links at first, but according to the site policies, I should be past both those milestones by now.

In addition, I would like to request that the site be changed so that posts appear in the order they were approved, rather than in the order in which they were submitted. That way new members' voices don't get drowned out by the veteran members who don't have to wait for post approval.

I found it unnecessarily laboured and frustrating too, it was taking literally days to then get posts refused because of something pernickity. I buggered off for ages, then decided to come back and post a lot of short uninteresting posts to get the required number. Now I can write long uninteresting posts with equanimity!

I expect it puts some people off bothering, which is a shame.