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: 64 (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

Hi,

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,
Scott

-- 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
Scott
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: 64 (View: All / In topic)

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

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#4  Postby TimTimothy » August 3rd, 2017, 6:41 pm

Having just had a topic denied, this jumped out to me.

I disagree with the Moderators stated reasons for denying the topic. But I was testing this forum as much as Scott is testing me, apparently.

I went and posed the same question to a different forum and had a completely productive conversation. And this is helping to clarify a paper I'm writing on the topic.

So, I suppose this is goodbye to this forum; I recognize nobody will miss me because I haven't had enough opportunity to be known. But I think my participation would have enhanced the discussions.

Best of luck.
User avatar
TimTimothy
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 27th, 2017, 6:31 pm

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#5  Postby Don Schneider » August 4th, 2017, 12:36 pm

What was the topic of your post, please?

BTW, since I wrote this OP, my posts are no longer being held up for approval. I'm uncertain if this is because the policy was changed or because it has always been the case that one must make a required number of posts before this privilege is extended. That helps a lot, but i sure wish the ban on editing one's own posts would go by the wayside, even if a reasonable time limit is put on edits. What possible harm could such cause? I'm afraid i just don't understand the administrator's, er, philosophy regarding this.
Don Schneider
 
Posts: 64 (View: All / In topic)

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

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#6  Postby Woodart » August 4th, 2017, 6:55 pm

Don Schneider wrote:, but i sure wish the ban on editing one's own posts would go by the wayside, even if a reasonable time limit is put on edits. What possible harm could such cause? I'm afraid i just don't understand the administrator's, er, philosophy regarding this.



When I first got here I did not understand this edit rule either. However, what I have come to appreciate is the deliberation process. Once you say something verbally - you cannot take it back. It is the same here in writing. So, the admonition is to be deliberate in what you say and write the first time - makes for a better thinker – in other words – edit your life.
Woodart
Moderator
 
Posts: 256 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#7  Postby Don Schneider » August 4th, 2017, 7:28 pm

Woodart wrote:
Don Schneider wrote:, but i sure wish the ban on editing one's own posts would go by the wayside, even if a reasonable time limit is put on edits. What possible harm could such cause? I'm afraid i just don't understand the administrator's, er, philosophy regarding this.



When I first got here I did not understand this edit rule either. However, what I have come to appreciate is the deliberation process. Once you say something verbally - you cannot take it back. It is the same here in writing. So, the admonition is to be deliberate in what you say and write the first time - makes for a better thinker – in other words – edit your life.


Well, thank you for your perspective which is noted and appreciated. However, on this we must agree to disagree. Before the advent of the camera, horse races were called by humans. Cameras came along and lent more accuracy. Therefore, they were used. The technology to allow a poster to edit one’s own posts has been available for years now. Therefore, I see no reason why such should not be used. Arguing that because oral communication cannot be retracted or edited once spoken then neither should written language within computer venues seems to me not unlike saying because a baby cannot walk then neither should more mature humans. It seems plain insipid to me, and I fear that a seemingly singular and stubborn insistence on the no-editing rule causes this forum participants. I am more interested in the quality of content than speed and accuracy of typing on the first go at it.
Don Schneider
 
Posts: 64 (View: All / In topic)

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

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#8  Postby Woodart » August 4th, 2017, 7:56 pm

Don Schneider wrote:
Woodart wrote:(Nested quote removed.)



When I first got here I did not understand this edit rule either. However, what I have come to appreciate is the deliberation process. Once you say something verbally - you cannot take it back. It is the same here in writing. So, the admonition is to be deliberate in what you say and write the first time - makes for a better thinker – in other words – edit your life.


Well, thank you for your perspective which is noted and appreciated. However, on this we must agree to disagree. Before the advent of the camera, horse races were called by humans. Cameras came along and lent more accuracy. Therefore, they were used. The technology to allow a poster to edit one’s own posts has been available for years now. Therefore, I see no reason why such should not be used. Arguing that because oral communication cannot be retracted or edited once spoken then neither should written language within computer venues seems to me not unlike saying because a baby cannot walk then neither should more mature humans. It seems plain insipid to me, and I fear that a seemingly singular and stubborn insistence on the no-editing rule causes this forum participants. I am more interested in the quality of content than speed and accuracy of typing on the first go at it.



Interesting response - look at this sentence:

“It seems plain insipid to me, and I fear that a seemingly singular and stubborn insistence on the no-editing rule causes this forum participants."

The quality of your content is lacking - you did not finish your thought. If you want to be taken seriously as a philosopher - my advice is to be very clear and precise in your writing. My advice is to write in a word processing program on your computer. Let it help you correct spelling and grammar - then read it for content – then reread it again. I think you will obtain better results – and – your editing objections will become superfluous.
Woodart
Moderator
 
Posts: 256 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#9  Postby Don Schneider » August 4th, 2017, 8:06 pm

Woodart wrote:
Don Schneider wrote:(Nested quote removed.)


Well, thank you for your perspective which is noted and appreciated. However, on this we must agree to disagree. Before the advent of the camera, horse races were called by humans. Cameras came along and lent more accuracy. Therefore, they were used. The technology to allow a poster to edit one’s own posts has been available for years now. Therefore, I see no reason why such should not be used. Arguing that because oral communication cannot be retracted or edited once spoken then neither should written language within computer venues seems to me not unlike saying because a baby cannot walk then neither should more mature humans. It seems plain insipid to me, and I fear that a seemingly singular and stubborn insistence on the no-editing rule causes this forum participants. I am more interested in the quality of content than speed and accuracy of typing on the first go at it.



Interesting response - look at this sentence:

“It seems plain insipid to me, and I fear that a seemingly singular and stubborn insistence on the no-editing rule causes this forum participants."

The quality of your content is lacking - you did not finish your thought. If you want to be taken seriously as a philosopher - my advice is to be very clear and precise in your writing. My advice is to write in a word processing program on your computer. Let it help you correct spelling and grammar - then read it for content – then reread it again. I think you will obtain better results – and – your editing objections will become superfluous.


I don’t understand what you mean by my not having finished my thought. It was, as stated, that I fear that this no-editing rule causes this forum participants, not unlike saying this or that policy causes this or that business customers. Please clarify your response. Thank you.
Don Schneider
 
Posts: 64 (View: All / In topic)

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

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#10  Postby Woodart » August 4th, 2017, 8:27 pm

Don Schneider wrote:
I don’t understand what you mean by my not having finished my thought. It was, as stated, that I fear that this no-editing rule causes this forum participants, not unlike saying this or that policy causes this or that business customers. Please clarify your response. Thank you.


“I fear that this no-editing rule causes this forum participants” to what – to be what – to do what – please drop the other shoe and tell us what the no-editing rule causes?
Woodart
Moderator
 
Posts: 256 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 3rd, 2017, 1:49 pm

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#11  Postby Don Schneider » August 5th, 2017, 10:45 am

Woodart wrote:
Don Schneider wrote:
I don’t understand what you mean by my not having finished my thought. It was, as stated, that I fear that this no-editing rule causes this forum participants, not unlike saying this or that policy causes this or that business customers. Please clarify your response. Thank you.


“I fear that this no-editing rule causes this forum participants” to what – to be what – to do what – please drop the other shoe and tell us what the no-editing rule causes?


Woodart, I see that you are right. In fact, I realized that on my ride home last night when it suddenly clicked. (I post at my office as I don’t have a computer, let alone internet, at home.) I, of course, meant to type “costs” and instead typed “causes.” In doing so I inadvertently made my point! This is a common hasty mistake known as a word substitution. One means to type one word while actually typing another. (Another common typographical error is a word omission, omitting a word—usually a minor one such as a preposition—from a sentence.) Even the most intelligent and educated of folks are subject to such foibles. I have noted an increasing number of such typos even within articles presented on major news websites as time pressures of the twenty-four hour contemporary news cycle prohibits the degree of proofreading and editing once found in print newspapers, for example.

As I stated in my OP, because one knows what one intended to type, one has a tendency to glance over such typographical errors when reviewing one’s own work. Therefore, a second pair of eyes is an invaluable aid in proofing because another has no such expectation as to what the author intended to type and thus will usually catch such hasty mistakes. As I also said, unfortunately most people do not the luxury of such assistance. This is all the more reason for allowing editing of one’s own posts as one might catch such errors by one’s self after one has stepped away from the post for awhile. So thank you for helping me make my point so saliently! :D
Don Schneider
 
Posts: 64 (View: All / In topic)

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

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#12  Postby -1- » August 5th, 2017, 11:36 pm

Don Schneider wrote:.

I love the non-editing rule. It makes sure that if I refer to someone else's statement, and my criticism of it they had to admit to being valid, then they can't go back to their old post and change it around just to make me sound stupid, or to make me sound as if I put words it their mouths.

This is one of the most importantly positive and useful part of this forum.
Sweat the small stuff... because then the big stuff will take care of itself.
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 563 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#13  Postby Don Schneider » August 6th, 2017, 10:30 am

-1- wrote:
Don Schneider wrote:.

I love the non-editing rule. It makes sure that if I refer to someone else's statement, and my criticism of it they had to admit to being valid, then they can't go back to their old post and change it around just to make me sound stupid, or to make me sound as if I put words it their mouths.

This is one of the most importantly positive and useful part of this forum.


That's not much an argument here. To avoid such (which I doubt would ever happen in any event given the caliber of people who post on a forum dedicated to such a heady subject matter as I've pointed out in my OP regarding the post approval protocol), all one has to do is what I just did in this reply to your post: quote it. The quote in a responding post cannot be edited by the poster whom one is quoting.
Don Schneider
 
Posts: 64 (View: All / In topic)

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

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#14  Postby -1- » August 6th, 2017, 10:52 pm

Don Schneider wrote:
That's not much an argument here. To avoid such (which I doubt would ever happen in any event given the caliber of people who post on a forum dedicated to such a heady subject matter as I've pointed out in my OP regarding the post approval protocol), all one has to do is what I just did in this reply to your post: quote it. The quote in a responding post cannot be edited by the poster whom one is quoting.


Wait a moment. What would stop you from altering the contents of the quote?

If the quote was unalterable, yes, maybe you have a point. Is that how other sites work? That you can't alter the contents of your own post if it contains a quote from another person? But you can alter it if you haven't quoted another person?
Sweat the small stuff... because then the big stuff will take care of itself.
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 563 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: An appeal to Scott to please reconsider restrictions

Post Number:#15  Postby Don Schneider » August 7th, 2017, 9:41 am

-1- wrote:
Don Schneider wrote:
That's not much an argument here. To avoid such (which I doubt would ever happen in any event given the caliber of people who post on a forum dedicated to such a heady subject matter as I've pointed out in my OP regarding the post approval protocol), all one has to do is what I just did in this reply to your post: quote it. The quote in a responding post cannot be edited by the poster whom one is quoting.


Wait a moment. What would stop you from altering the contents of the quote?

If the quote was unalterable, yes, maybe you have a point. Is that how other sites work? That you can't alter the contents of your own post if it contains a quote from another person? But you can alter it if you haven't quoted another person?


Yes, I thought of that myself. But now we are presented with basically the same proposition in reverse. A poster might edit his or her own post on an ex post facto basis pursuant to a response in order to invalidate the response: your rationale for the no editing rule; while on the other hand, a poster might alter what another poster wrote in a quote, an even more egregious proposition. So I don’t see the rationale for not allowing a poster to edit his or her own post yet allow one to quote from another’s post which one, as you say, can alter. It seems totally inconsistent.

But again, I find these to be moot considerations. I cannot imagine such unethical behavior (that is likely to be called out even if such occurred) occurring on a philosophy forum when such seems not to be a concern of forum owners who have forums devoted to much more contentious topics such as politics. Again, this is the only forum of many (with various subject focuses) that I have posted on that presently has this rule.
Don Schneider
 
Posts: 64 (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 4 guests

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