Discussion of Forum Rules - OLD

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

Discussion of Forum Rules - OLD

Post Number:#1  Postby Foreverrain » October 26th, 2007, 2:18 am

Scott wrote:These rules apply to the entire Philosophy Forums, not just the feedback section.

No excessive or unnecessary vulgarity or profanity.

No insults, flames, personal attacks, libel, slander, or ad hominems. Please keep discussion focused on the issues of the specific threads and topics, and not on the character of those discussing the issues.

Posters must use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. If a poster is sloppy with his or her spelling and grammar, then the value of the post is probably just as low.

These are discussion forums not an instant messenger. Please do not use instant-message short-hand, such as "u" instead of 'you' or "str8" instead of 'straight'.

All posts must be on topic.

No single word posts, or meaningless posts. No posts that simply say "yes", "no", "bump", or "I agree".

Before posting a thread, search the forum and see if there is already a thread on that topic. All new threads must be at least 45 words. Do not post a thread which only asks for one-word answers. Poor quality threads will be deleted.

Irrelevant threads will be moved to a relevant category or deleted. Irrelevant posts will be deleted.

No spam. No advertising. No selling. If you have a charity or other organization about which you would like to inform this forum, please use the Ways To Help category to describe the organization.

Posters who violate these rules will be warned or banned.

The staff can and will modify or delete any posts at their discretion. Also at their discretion, the staff can and will suspend or ban any posters.


Insults are innevitable. Anyone can be offended by the slightest of things, depending on how weak they are. Of course there will be weak people here so we should not discriminate so much. It will only help them to grow to hear such vulgarities. Such is the nature of mankind.
Foreverrain
 
Posts: 24 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 23rd, 2007, 5:35 pm

Discussion of Forum Rules - OLD



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Post Number:#2  Postby Scott » October 28th, 2007, 8:42 pm

I expect that people joining a philosophy forum can tell the difference between an ad hominem insult and a relevant statement.

On-topic philosophical statements that may offend someone are allowed, because people can be offended by anything. For example, it may offend some theists if I say, "there is not a god." Also, it may offend some atheists if I say, "there is a god." However, those two statements may be perfectly acceptable in a philosophical discussion.

The statements are prohibited if they include ad hominems, flames or personal attacks. For example, saying "there is a god, moron," is an insult and would be prohibited.

Ad hominems and personal insults are not on-topic and ruin the discussion. In many cases they are illegal. When used as a form of philosophical argument, they are fallacious.

Thanks,
Scott
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

Post Number:#3  Postby Foreverrain » October 28th, 2007, 10:57 pm

Scott wrote:I expect that people joining a philosophy forum can tell the difference between an ad hominem insult and a relevant statement.

On-topic philosophical statements that may offend someone are allowed, because people can be offended by anything. For example, it may offend some theists if I say, "there is not a god." Also, it may offend some atheists if I say, "there is a god." However, those two statements may be perfectly acceptable in a philosophical discussion.

The statements are prohibited if they include ad hominems, flames or personal attacks. For example, saying "there is a god, moron," is an insult and would be prohibited.

Ad hominems and personal insults are not on-topic and ruin the discussion. In many cases they are illegal. When used as a form of philosophical argument, they are fallacious.

Thanks,
Scott


This is exactly what I meant and thank you. Seeing as how Nietzsche is my biggest influence, I tend to get edgy, but never insulting.
Foreverrain
 
Posts: 24 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 23rd, 2007, 5:35 pm

Post Number:#4  Postby Scott » October 28th, 2007, 11:06 pm

Sorry for not being clearer in the original post. I also like Nietzsche a lot. He probably isn't my biggest influence, though.

Thanks,
Scott
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: Philosophy Forums Rules

Post Number:#5  Postby squarb » January 25th, 2008, 1:13 am

Scott wrote:Posters must use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. If a poster is sloppy with his or her spelling and grammar, then the value of the post is probably just as low.


Hello! New member here and im looking forward to getting involved with the discussion in the forums!

However, i was concerned about the level of tolerance towards mistakes of the spelling and grammar kind. I have dyslexia and thus quite frequently there will be errors in my posts - which in the past has caused hostilities from the "Grammar Nazi's" on other forums & chat rooms. Consequently i find myself slightly phobic of being burnt alive in places where an emphasis is placed upon this.

I do spell check my postings before submitting and have a sufficient IQ to often be clear and understandable, but is that enough if i sometimes get a word jumbled up or a sentence unusually structured?

As i hope comes across, i am a person who likes to apply humour in my writings, sometimes quite dry or at my own expense .. but of cause i do not wish to be disregarded or worse banned for something i consider a subjective barrier of awareness / understanding (if the concept is understood in so few words).
squarb
 
Posts: 2 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 25th, 2008, 12:43 am

Post Number:#6  Postby Scott » January 25th, 2008, 1:21 am

squarb, I'll keep in mind that you are dyslexic. Generally, I'm not that strict. As long as posters try, I don't think there will be a problem.

It's just I don't want the forum flooded with sloppy posts that were made without effort by the poster.

I'm glad you're here, and I think you'll do very well here.

Thanks,
Scott
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

Post Number:#7  Postby Belinda » August 13th, 2008, 3:03 pm

The pornographer uses the same name so presumably she is registered with an email address. Please exclude her permanently because she is unable to do philosophy in any recognisable way.
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#8  Postby Scott » August 16th, 2008, 3:04 pm

Belinda wrote:The pornographer uses the same name so presumably she is registered with an email address. Please exclude her permanently because she is unable to do philosophy in any recognisable way.

I hope I have already deleted all the posts made by her. If you see any more, please PM me the URL.

Thanks,
Scott
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

Feedback and forum announcements.

Post Number:#9  Postby Edward J. Bartek » September 6th, 2008, 9:07 pm

All the rules make sense, but I would think that anyone posting on a philosophy forum would be rational enough, educated enough, and cultured enough to know these rules that could apply to any social interaction.
Edward J. Bartek
 
Posts: 270 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 14th, 2008, 12:50 pm

Post Number:#10  Postby Belinda » September 7th, 2008, 8:04 am

Edward. I wish!

Although ,apart from commercial interruptions, this forum of people is marked by the good qualities you mention, Edward
Belinda
Contributor
 
Posts: 13865 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post Number:#11  Postby kb » November 22nd, 2008, 9:28 pm

"Posters must use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. If a poster is sloppy with his or her spelling and grammar, then the value of the post is probably just as low."

That or perhaps they just don't spell or punctuate all that well, which as far as I'm aware would have virtually nothing to do with their abilities to make logical or rational arguments, or making the value of their posts low. It may look a little better if this is of importance to someone. Most of the "rules" seem to be within reason, though a few could be debated, say, ad hominem attacks may be rather subjective, but the spelling and punctuation rule I feel to be a little extreme. Just my immediate opinion. Thanks!
kb
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 22nd, 2008, 9:07 pm

Post Number:#12  Postby heliocentrism » October 5th, 2009, 7:30 pm

Will do Scott!!!
All men by nature desire knowledge
User avatar
heliocentrism
 
Posts: 29 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: October 1st, 2009, 8:02 pm
Location: Somewhere

Post Number:#13  Postby Scott » January 27th, 2010, 11:41 pm

Here is a clarification about the rules (particularly #2, #5 and #13) that I sent to a member who had concerns about why I don't censor people arguing for offensive and things we assume are incorrect but why I strictly disallow name-calling and ad hominem arguments made at those people in response. I am posting this here to help others understand the forum rules:

For example, one who is religious may get angry and offended when an atheist makes an argument in support of atheism. However, it is not against the forum rules. Indeed, on the index page of the forums, I have written, "We want these forums to be the best place on the internet for in-depth, open-minded, civil debate and discussion about even the most complex or controversial topics."

These are forums for people who want to debate things and question fundamental assumptions. In large part because questioning certain things can be upsetting and conducive to negative emotions, the forum rules clearly require that this must be done in the most polite and respectful manner without ridicule, sarcasm and snide asides. In itself, it would not be a violation of the forum rules if someone argued that Hitler was a good guy, that genocide is morally right and that Santa Claus is real. In that sense, the topics are uncensored. However, there are still those strict rules and the strict moderation about the method of discussion--about staying on-topic and being polite, respectful and civil.

For example, it is not against the forum rules to say after making an argument, "So I conclude that Santa Claus is real," or to say, "So I conclude that genocide is a morally good thing and is in the best interests of humanity." Even though those may be beliefs with which almost nobody agrees and that disgust almost everyone including you and I, it is not necessarily against the forum rules. In contrast, it would be against the forum rules for someone to say after making an argument, "So I conclude that the sky is blue, you idiot. You are such a moron for not believing this. And by the way, you are ugly-looking from that picture I saw of you," or to say, "Cold-blooded murder of innocent 3-year-old children is immoral, you disgusting pig. If you believe that, you must be a retard, LOL!!!" Those are blatantly against the forum rules even though I agree that the sky is blue and most people may think the murder is indeed immoral.

You see, the forum rules restrict the way arguments are presented and the intention of the author not censor the topics. Though, they must be on-topic both for the respective forum category and respective thread.

Have you read the forum rules? If not, please do. I also recommend you read my post, How to Have Productive Philosophical Conversations. I think that will really give you a good understanding of what I do and do not allow on these forums and what my goal is for this forums.

***

Also, I often have problems were a thread gets derailed into a flame war or otherwise where two or more members have each repeatedly broken the rules by being rude to each other and making off-topic insulting remarks.

I realize it is tempting to respond in kind when someone else breaks the rules. If someone calls me a doodyhead I may be tempted to reply back that they are a poopface. But it is still not allowed. And it would be just as much a violation of the rules for me to reply back with the poopface insult as it was for him to call me a doodyhead. So it is important to report posts that you think break the rules particularly by insulting or ridiculing you rather than responding in kind.

On more than one occasion the dinner my fiancée has cooked for me has gotten cold because I have had to spend so much time moderating a thread that has been derailed by a long back-and-forth of insulting, rude rule-breaking posts because the debaters decided to keep responding to rule-breaking insults with their own rule-breaking insults and upset off-topic rants rather than reporting the original post. What would have been one simple 'delete' and warning turns into an hour long project of editing posts, deleting posts, messaging multiple users and generally trying to salvage a horribly messed up thread for the sake of the other members who followed the rules and remained polite and on-topic. So again, please, report posts that break the rules; don't respond in kind.

Thanks!
Scott
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

Post Number:#14  Postby NameRemoved » January 30th, 2010, 2:56 am

8. Irrelevant threads will be moved to a relevant category or deleted. Irrelevant posts will be deleted


what is classed as irrelevant? say if you answer someones question and they say hi you, are we not allowed to say hi back in reply? are we allowed to be polite and informal aswell as formal? seems strict otherwise the reason I am asking is because my friendly post in reply to Hellos "your quick" comment to me, on her random objects thread has now been deleted.
NameRemoved
 
Posts: 642 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 28th, 2009, 9:00 pm

Post Number:#15  Postby Scott » March 16th, 2010, 1:37 pm

*Izzy* wrote:
8. Irrelevant threads will be moved to a relevant category or deleted. Irrelevant posts will be deleted


what is classed as irrelevant? say if you answer someones question and they say hi you, are we not allowed to say hi back in reply? are we allowed to be polite and informal aswell as formal? seems strict otherwise the reason I am asking is because my friendly post in reply to Hellos "your quick" comment to me, on her random objects thread has now been deleted.


An irrelevant thread would be one that is not philosophical or does not fit into the category it is posted in. For instance, a thread in the 'Philosophy of Politics' section that has nothing to do with politics would be moved to the off-topic section or deleted. A non-philosophical thread posted in any of the on-topic forums would be moved to the off-topic section.

While a very small amount polite asides are tolerated within otherwise on-topic posts, any aside or off-topic remark that could is borderline offensive, insulting or rude would be deleted.

However, a post that is just off-topic remarks will be deleted even if they are polite.

For instance, if in a thread posted in the on-topic section such as "general philosophy" someone said in an otherwise on topic post, "hi, nice to see you around." and someone made a reply post that only contained the following sentences: "Thanks. I'm doing good. How are you?" That would be deleted because the whole post is off-topic; it's not just a small aside within a post that is generally on-topic.

For example, it's okay to say something polite but off-topic like "Hi" or "thanks for posting this" if it is just part of a post that contains significant other on-topic remarks in reply to the philosophical topic.

In other words, the main point or thrust of the post must be on-topic.

Making posts in the on-topic section that are only about off-topic points will be deleted.

It's also important to take note of rule #6. Single word posts, two word posts and meaningless posts will be deleted. Posts must contribute something to the on-topic discussion.

Thanks!
Scott
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

Next

Return to Feedback, Support & Forum Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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