Topics Now Require Approval

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Please note, a way to not have one's topics held for moderation is to become a queue moderator.

[Roel]

Please note, a way to not have one's topics held for moderation is to become a queue moderator.

I think a problem with this is that someone would become a queue moderator to get topics approved and the chance that bad topics get approved. I let my topics get approved by othermoderators because it's unfairin my opinion, if I judge my own topic, I might not observe certain mistakes which other moderators observe.

-- Updated December 22nd, 2014, 12:57 pm to add the following --

Please note, a way to not have one's topics held for moderation is to become a queue moderator.

I think a problem with this is that someone would become a queue moderator to get topics approved and the chance that bad topics get approved. I let my topics get approved by othermoderators because it's unfairin my opinion, if I judge my own topic, I might not observe certain mistakes which other moderators observe.

I write with my mobile right now, therefore some words don't have spaces.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Please note, a way to not have one's topics held for moderation is to become a queue moderator.

I think a problem with this is that someone would become a queue moderator to get topics approved and the chance that bad topics get approved. I let my topics get approved by other moderators because it's unfair in my opinion, if I judge my own topic, I might not observe certain mistakes which other moderators observe.

My view is that to be a queue moderator we must be able to generally trust one to judge whether a post adhere to the rules or not. If a queue moderator is found to be approving (or making) posts that are rule-breaking or disapproving posts that are not rule-breaking with a small degree of frequency, then that person would not be a queue moderator anymore.

[Roel]

(Nested quote removed.)


I think a problem with this is that someone would become a queue moderator to get topics approved and the chance that bad topics get approved. I let my topics get approved by other moderators because it's unfair in my opinion, if I judge my own topic, I might not observe certain mistakes which other moderators observe.

My view is that to be a queue moderator we must be able to generally trust one to judge whether a post adhere to the rules or not. If a queue moderator is found to be approving (or making) posts that are rule-breaking or disapproving posts that are not rule-breaking with a small degree of frequency, then that person would not be a queue moderator anymore.

Yes, I can agree here with you. A moderator should take his or her task seriously

[Okisites]

I wanted to ask Administrators and Moderators that if my topic can be rejected on the basis of weak grammar(but still understandable), then how can I be allowed(or not banned) to post on other topics? Isn't it mean that if my grammar (or anybody else's grammar) is weak, he/she should be banned from participating in the forum, OR moderators should moderate each and every replies to the topic?

I think Topics are more important than Replies to Topics, because A topic involves too many replies, which most probably be perfectly adhering to rules. Needless to say that it also involves thoughts, logic, better understanding and solutions and maybe much more. But I don't understand that why Replies are given more importance and ignore for their mistakes, than the Topic itself. What is the proper logic in these kind of rules of posting new topics?

And moreover, what is the logic behind disapproving the topic because someone's grammar is not perfect, on logical ground? Doesn't it seems like saying that if the person can't speak with proper grammar(even if it is understandable), then he/she must not be allowed to speak anything? Isn't it seems like a rule to suppress freedom of speech? This rule itself seems to be against logic, quite frankly.

I can ask too many question with regards to this rule, but I will just trying to get the answers of the above. What is the logical answer of above questions?

[Roel]

I wanted to ask Administrators and Moderators that if my topic can be rejected on the basis of weak grammar(but still understandable), then how can I be allowed(or not banned) to post on other topics? Isn't it mean that if my grammar (or anybody else's grammar) is weak, he/she should be banned from participating in the forum, OR moderators should moderate each and every replies to the topic?

I think Topics are more important than Replies to Topics, because A topic involves too many replies, which most probably be perfectly adhering to rules. Needless to say that it also involves thoughts, logic, better understanding and solutions and maybe much more. But I don't understand that why Replies are given more importance and ignore for their mistakes, than the Topic itself. What is the proper logic in these kind of rules of posting new topics?

And moreover, what is the logic behind disapproving the topic because someone's grammar is not perfect, on logical ground? Doesn't it seems like saying that if the person can't speak with proper grammar(even if it is understandable), then he/she must not be allowed to speak anything? Isn't it seems like a rule to suppress freedom of speech? This rule itself seems to be against logic, quite frankly.

I can ask too many question with regards to this rule, but I will just trying to get the answers of the above. What is the logical answer of above questions?

I think that the idea behind this rule is not surpression, but clarity. If you don't use commas or don't use certain words, because that's easier, it makes it harder to understand what you mean. Also, I 'm one of the few non-english speakers as a first language here, yet my posts are accepted, because my english is not perfect, but good enough to understand me. This rule exists for people which create an unreadable or not very clear post because of their grammar.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Okisites, if you do not like one of the forum rules, please make a new topic in the feedback section suggesting that rule be changed or deleted. If you think a moderator deleted/disapproved a post of yours that was not rule-breaking, you must start a new topic in the feedback section for that complaint that adheres to the Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions. If you think a post by someone else is rule-breaking, you must use the report button to report it, per the forum rules.

In none of those 3 cases does your concern belong as a reply to this topic which is about the new policy change to hold new topics by all members in the moderation queue. This forum has over two hundred thousands posts; It is important that they be organized properly meaning that each post is on-topic in the topic in which is contained and each topic is on-topic in the forum in which it is contained.

[Okisites]

Okisites, if you do not like one of the forum rules, please make a new topic in the feedback section suggesting that rule be changed or deleted.

What if that too will get disapproved?

[Roel]

Okisites, if you do not like one of the forum rules, please make a new topic in the feedback section suggesting that rule be changed or deleted.

What if that too will get disapproved?

I will help you to correct possible grammar mistakes. I don't see any problem with your topic personally.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Okisites, if you do not like one of the forum rules, please make a new topic in the feedback section suggesting that rule be changed or deleted.

What if that too will get disapproved?

The Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions is not that hard to follow. In any case, if your topic gets disapproved, simply correct the mistakes that caused it to be against the forum rules and repost. Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions are simply a very elaborated explanation of how the forum rules will apply to complaints about moderator actions so that there is even less room for confusion.

[Newme]

I just banged up against this new policy when trying to open a new thread in The Philosophy of Politics forum. Yes, my new thread is controversial. Yes, anyone dealing with it could find themselves on a gov't watch list. But I'm asking the readership here a question I need help with! I need advice!

Scott, if you want good spelling, grammar and syntax, add a "Preview with Auto-Edit" button under the post, and run it through a good one, like Word's (c). If that costs too much, in your view, ask for donations. You'll be surprised how many of us will pony up.

But if this policy in any way tends towards censorship, it really sucks a pustule, and I'll be outta here in a New York second.

I agree that generally, this new policy of censorship is counter to the purpose of philosophy. Also, the edit option needs to be back in place, ideally. Who wants to spend one's limited time creating posts only to have them disappear for approval (censorship)? It's BS and I can guess who's idea this was.

-- Updated January 12th, 2015, 8:48 pm to add the following --

Please note, a way to not have one's topics held for moderation is to become a queue moderator.

So either be censored or censor? Come on, Scott! Did you really have this as part of your intention for this forum? I used to like this forum for the general respect toward freedom of speech and getting all thoughts out there to either be slammed because of logical fallacy or ethical issues, or to continue to stand against scrutiny. Now, it seems that many thoughts won't have a chance. Please allow freedom to post as before.

Is space on this forum the issue? If so, could you just delete inactive threads beyond a certain year in the past?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I agree that generally, this new policy of censorship [...]

There is no new policy of censorship. What are you talking about? This topic is about having moderates check to see if a new topic follows the forum rules before it is posted publicly instead of the moderators deleting the topic after it has been posted. The forum rules have not changed.

Who wants to spend one's limited time creating posts only to have them disappear for approval (censorship)?

If one wants to be on a forum in which the forum rules we have that make this forum unique one is welcome to go there. There are many places on the internet to have unmoderated discussions, or to have discussions that are moderated according to a different rule set.

The new policy of having new topics held for moderations seems to be very effective at enforcing the rules in the most user-friendly way. The previous way of deleting topics after they were posted and temporarily displayed was not as user-friendly, in my opinion.

Please note, a way to not have one's topics held for moderation is to become a queue moderator.

So either be censored or censor? Come on, Scott!

I never said anything about censorship. How about we call it help the moderation team enforce the forum rules or stop complaining about the policy changes make the volunteer moderators' jobs easier?

Did you really have this as part of your intention for this forum?

Have what as my intention?

I used to like this forum for the general respect toward freedom of speech and getting all thoughts out there to either be slammed because of logical fallacy or ethical issues, or to continue to stand against scrutiny. Now, it seems that many thoughts won't have a chance. Please allow freedom to post as before.

None of those policies have changed. They are all covered in the forum rules. The forum rules haven't changed.

Is space on this forum the issue? If so, could you just delete inactive threads beyond a certain year in the past?

Space is not an issue at all. The issue is it is more tedious, time-consuming and user-unfriendly to delete rule-breaking topics after they have been posted instead of before. If you go #1 of the forum rules and look at the last sentence, there is a link entitled "this clarification on how forum discussions are simultaneously uncensored and strictly moderated". That--like all the other forum rules--has been there long before this new policy change in when topics are moderated. The ruleset against which the decision to allow or disallow a topic to be posted has not changed. So I don't know what all this talk about 'new censorship' is about.

-- Updated 13 Jan 2015 12:43 am to add the following --

I agree that generally, this new policy of censorship [...]

There is no new policy of censorship. What are you talking about? This topic is about having moderates check to see if a new topic follows the forum rules before it is posted publicly instead of the moderators deleting the topic after it has been posted. The forum rules have not changed.

Who wants to spend one's limited time creating posts only to have them disappear for approval (censorship)?

If one wants to be on a forum in which the forum rules we have that make this forum unique one is welcome to go there. There are many places on the internet to have unmoderated discussions, or to have discussions that are moderated according to a different rule set.

The new policy of having new topics held for moderations seems to be very effective at enforcing the rules in the most user-friendly way. The previous way of deleting topics after they were posted and temporarily displayed was not as user-friendly, in my opinion.

Please note, a way to not have one's topics held for moderation is to become a queue moderator.

So either be censored or censor? Come on, Scott!

I never said anything about censorship. How about we call it help the moderation team enforce the forum rules or stop complaining about the policy changes make the volunteer moderators' jobs easier?

Did you really have this as part of your intention for this forum?

Have what as my intention?

I used to like this forum for the general respect toward freedom of speech and getting all thoughts out there to either be slammed because of logical fallacy or ethical issues, or to continue to stand against scrutiny. Now, it seems that many thoughts won't have a chance. Please allow freedom to post as before.

None of those policies have changed. They are all covered in the forum rules. The forum rules haven't changed.

Is space on this forum the issue? If so, could you just delete inactive threads beyond a certain year in the past?

Space is not an issue at all. The issue is it is more tedious, time-consuming and user-unfriendly to delete rule-breaking topics after they have been posted instead of before. If you go #1 of the forum rules and look at the last sentence, there is a link entitled "this clarification on how forum discussions are simultaneously uncensored and strictly moderated". That--like all the other forum rules--has been there long before this new policy change in when topics are moderated. The ruleset against which the decision to allow or disallow a topic to be posted has not changed. So I don't know what all this talk about 'new censorship' is about.

[Roel]

I just banged up against this new policy when trying to open a new thread in The Philosophy of Politics forum. Yes, my new thread is controversial. Yes, anyone dealing with it could find themselves on a gov't watch list. But I'm asking the readership here a question I need help with! I need advice!

Scott, if you want good spelling, grammar and syntax, add a "Preview with Auto-Edit" button under the post, and run it through a good one, like Word's (c). If that costs too much, in your view, ask for donations. You'll be surprised how many of us will pony up.

But if this policy in any way tends towards censorship, it really sucks a pustule, and I'll be outta here in a New York second.

I agree that generally, this new policy of censorship is counter to the purpose of philosophy. Also, the edit option needs to be back in place, ideally. Who wants to spend one's limited time creating posts only to have them disappear for approval (censorship)? It's BS and I can guess who's idea this was.

-- Updated January 12th, 2015, 8:48 pm to add the following --

Please note, a way to not have one's topics held for moderation is to become a queue moderator.

So either be censored or censor? Come on, Scott! Did you really have this as part of your intention for this forum? I used to like this forum for the general respect toward freedom of speech and getting all thoughts out there to either be slammed because of logical fallacy or ethical issues, or to continue to stand against scrutiny. Now, it seems that many thoughts won't have a chance. Please allow freedom to post as before.

Is space on this forum the issue? If so, could you just delete inactive threads beyond a certain year in the past?

I did a lot of work yesterday, but we simply don't have enough moderators to get posts approved fast enough. If you want to help, we would appreciate that. As for censorship, topics aren't disapproved on their content, at least, I and other moderators normally approve topics applying to the forum rules. Your idea for donations for an auto-correct tool here seems like a good idea to me, what do you think about that Scott?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Does Internet Explorer not already have a spellchecker built-in? I rarely ever use that browser except for testing, but I know the others have had a spellchecker built-in by default for a long time.

[Roel]

Does Internet Explorer not already have a spellchecker built-in? I rarely ever use that browser except for testing, but I know the others have had a spellchecker built-in by default for a long time.

The browser at my mobile, and I guess most mobiles, doesn't have one and my Google Chrome neither. Is it hard to implent a dictionary file at this forum with a spell-checker somewhere? And some people can't use Internet Explorer, you need to keep that in mind.