An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Here is the place for your suggestions, comments, or questions regarding the Philosophy Forums.

An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#1  Postby Don Schneider » May 25th, 2017, 10:02 am

Scott, this is your forum and you can, of course, run it as you see fit. No one would argue with that. It is indeed generous of you and anyone who expends money and time for a public forum to do so. However, this is a common sense appeal to you that I feel many others here would support.

Your forum has the most restrictive rules I have encountered in quite some time. For example, I haven’t seen a forum where one is not permitted to edit one’s own posts since the advent of such forums in the old Prodigy days when such wasn’t technically possible yet. Some forums place a reasonable time limit on editing while others allow unlimited editing without having experienced any catastrophic results that I have ever heard of. Most people who wish to edit simply want to fix typos. Most people don’t have the luxury of a second pair of eyes which is invaluable in proofreading because as one knows what one intended to type one has a tendency to glance over typos or hasty mistakes such as “there” for “their” or “you” for “your,” (a very common typographical error) and many place an overreliance on spell check functions when typing offline and then pasting online. Therefore, one often doesn’t always catch mistakes the first time around. I would think that you would rather not have sloppy posts on your forum, and for the life of me I don’t know what your trepidation is with allowing your posters to edit their own posts.

Secondly, and even more irksome, your policy of moderators having to approve new posts and even replies (I’m uncertain if this is for or everyone or just newer members for a period of time) to existing posts severely disrupts back and forth discussions. Sometimes, one has to wait hours for one’s reply to show up on a topic and hours more for a response. This makes continuity of thought difficult and It is totally disruptive. It is not difficult to judge the attention to propriety of a new poster after just a few posts, especially with this forum’s subject matter.

What is most perplexing is that I’m uncertain what your apprehension is when just about every other forum with any subject focus does not have these restrictions, even ones with such volatile subject matters as politics. Do you really think people who would be attracted to a forum such as yours in which the vocabulary includes: “existentialism”; “metaphysical”; “relativity”’ “ontological”; and with such luminaries discussed as: Descartes; Spinoza; Kant; and Sarte require a greater degree of shepherding than people who disuses Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton or Tom Brady and Collin Kaepernick?

Scott, this could be a truly splendid forum, but I feel your over-moderating is chasing away many people who have other options on the subject of philosophy and will go elsewhere to post. My post of yesterday has all of fourteen views so far, five of which are probably my own. Please rethink these matters for the benefit of your own forum and of all.

Thank you for your consideration.
Don Schneider
Posts: 37 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#2  Postby Scott » May 25th, 2017, 12:07 pm


I appreciate the feedback and will consider making some polls in the moderator's forum regarding potentially changing certain policies.

One thing to keep in mind is that we specifically do not want to be like the other forums out there.

Those who prefer the unmoderated type of forum discussions found on countless other websites can use those ones. We are hoping to provide something exceedingly unique.

We previously lighter moderation policies, but they resulted in problems and made it even harder to moderate the forum.

Thank you,

-- Updated 25 May 2017 11:12 am to add the following --

Also, another thing to keep in mind is this: While our moderation in terms of enforcement of the forums rules is very strict and can be burdensome, at the same time the forum rules very liberally allow for the discussion to be uncensored in a deeper sense. Thus, we have had many extremely controversial topics on the forums. As one can imagine, those also have a tendency to result in serious rule-breaking posts due to the emotional and controversial nature of the discussions. Most websites would not allow those topics to be discussed at all. It's kind of an ironic relationship between (1) allowing unpopular opinions to be expressed as long as they follow the forum rule (e.g. staying on topic, no personal attacks, etc.). versus (2) heavily enforcing those forum rules to prevent the sensitive topics from degenerating into awful rule-breaking flame wars and such.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 4206 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#3  Postby Don Schneider » May 25th, 2017, 5:42 pm

Thanks for the courteous response and consideration, Scott. It’s most appreciated. Best to you. Don
Don Schneider
Posts: 37 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Return to Feedback, Support & Forum Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST