Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Spectrum]

I am hoping there will be a reversion to the old policy and permission of posting threads.

[Obvious Leo]

This site defines itself as a philosophy forum, not a religious forum, of which there are no doubt plenty. Religion is a legitimate subject of philosophical enquiry because it is a definable and observable phenomenon. The existence or non-existence of god is not such a subject. Therefore using a forum such as this as a pulpit is offensive to those who value the validity of philosophy as a tool to aid the advance of human knowledge.

Regards Leo

[Teralek]

Do we get a message back if a specific post was not approved and the reason why?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I find the above move a 'killer' to the spontaneity to contribute topics.
It is has been more than 24 hours since I posted two OPs and they have yet to appear.

I understand your concern. One can still submit a topic on a spontaneous whim, but it will have to be approved by a moderator before it becomes public. One issue with posting on a spontaneous whim could be that one does not carefully think-out and proofread the topic, partly out of excitement. But that is not in line with the quality expectations of the forum. Some topics get hundreds of replies and result in very lively and even heated debate. It's important that that ensuing discussion be framed as well as possible by strictly adhering to the forum rules regarding new topics.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 06:55 pm to add the following --

If this is for spam, I can totally understand it. But I 'm a bit worried about the human factor here. What will be the requirements for a topic to be approved?

The requirement is that it must follow the forum rules.

What for example if a moderator is left-wing and chooses to not approve a topic because it is against his or her personal political ideology?

If a moderator disapproved a topic that adheres to the forum rules, then I would beg the person who tried to submit the disapproved topic to submit a complaint either via PM to me or by starting a new topic with the complaint in the feedback section; but make sure the complaint adheres to the Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions.

However, the question will never be "was the moderator biased"; the question will be "was the post rule-breaking".

Wikipedia has the same problem in fact, one of the editors was removed from his function because he was a scientist simply editing about 200 articles because they weren't in line with his views on climate change. This is why I don't really like wikipedia, because it's not reliable.

Wikipedia has a lot of problems. I like to use it to find real sources. I find it to be an effective tool to find sourced facts so one can check out those sources and learn something from a trustworthy site. Wikipedia is not itself a trustworthy source, but it does a good job of organizing links to trustworthy sources.

At Philosophy Club, I found very distinguishing people, and a very open culture to talk, I don't want this place to go in the same direction as Wikipedia and have moderators/editors/admins turning the place in a closed culture where corruption happens.

I agree. That is why I have taken the time to carefully consider Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions, to allow for public appeals to be made. If a moderator is found to be approving rule-breaking posts or disapproving rule-adhering posts, in excess of what would be reasonably expected, then that moderator will lose their ability to be a moderator.

I could help with approving topics, but I first want to know what the requirements are. I want to help in preventing spam and bad subjects which aren't philosophical and don't agree with the forum, so if that's what the requirements are I can help.

The requirements are that the post follow the forum rules. If you want to help as a queue moderator that would be great; send me a PM.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:01 pm to add the following --

In regard to the new rules, could you please tell me:

How would you view the OP which began the discussion "Gun control and mass murder"?

There are a few grammatical issues, but not enough that I think it warrants disapproving the post. It asks open-ended questions and seems to make arguments (which I think are invalid as explained in my reply to the topic, but the forum rules do not require one to make sound arguments, since that is what is meant to be argued from the opposing sides, nor do the forum rules require one to make arguments with which I happen to agree).

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:03 pm to add the following --

What is the definition of "contributor"?

Generally, it is someone who has contributed money to the forums. I have also marked a couple of ex-moderators as contributors in consideration of their volunteer work to help the site.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:08 pm to add the following --

Exactly, Hog Rider. The reason I asked was because I would like to know if the new rules require an OP to be without insult or lies, both of which were contained in the original post by UniversalAlien, and have since been repeated by him.

The forum rules have always required an OP (and all replies) to be free from personal attacks against other members of the forum. If you feel a post on the forum contains a personal attack or ad hominem argument, please report it. Preferably, specify in the report the exact sentence(s) of the post you feel are in violation of that rule.

There is no rule against lying. There is a rule against accusing other members of lying. (Interestingly, though it isn't specified in the rules, I would say that having a few posters to play devil's advocate is encouraged.)

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:15 pm to add the following --

I have modified the posting permissions to require new topics to be approved before they are made public and before other can post replies to them. I believe this will save a lot of moderation work by making sure topics get off to a good start.

I believe such an overregulation is counterproductive and will deter people from opening new threads.

I understand your concern and appreciate your time to give your feedback. However, the forum rules are to be enforced either way. If you don't like the forum rules and don't want them enforced, that's a different complaint. I think that having new topics verified as rule-adhering rather than rule-breaking before making them public will help save moderator time. I think it will actually reduce the need for moderator intervention, as it is much easier and user-friendly to send a topic back to the author for editing to make it rule-following rather than delete it after replies have already been made. Also, since a well-framed rule-adhering topic helps lead to better replies more likely to also follow the rules, ensuring topics follow the rules before replies are made reduces the amount that moderators are going through topics deleting and editing rule-breaking replies.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:17 pm to add the following --

How are moderators/contributors to know the thought processes, intentions of an OP's mind?

Why do the moderators need to know the thought processes, intentions of an OP's mind to determine whether a post is rule-breaking or not? And what does that have to do with the change of new topics being sent to the moderation queue, considering that moderators were also in charge of judging whether posts followed the forum rules? The difference in this change is that the moderator makes the decision before the topic is made public and thus before any replies could have been posted; thus when a moderator judges a new topic to be rule-breaking they are disapproving it prior to it being posted rather than deleting it after it being posted.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:21 pm to add the following --

I have modified the posting permissions to require new topics to be approved before they are made public and before other can post replies to them.

.

Is my recent thread on the topic of "morality" ever going to be approved, Scott? How long would that take??

And how do you avoid the censorship problem? If you screen them personally, I am not worried. If some small-minded Mod filters them, I agree with those who said, 'It gets creepy!'

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by the "censorship" problem. Rule-breaking posts are supposed to be deleted. Some may call that censorship. If a moderator deletes/disapproves a rule-breaking post, then I request the poster create a complaint that follows the Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions. If a moderator routinely approves rule-breaking posts or disapproves rule-adhering posts, then that moderator will not be a moderator anymore.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:24 pm to add the following --

I am a queue moderator and I think the reason I'm exempt from having my opening post in the queue is simply that I can go in the queue and approve it there myself!

I also want to say that I think that a good number of opening posts do not follow the rules and I think the rules on this forum are very good. Starting the day on the right foot is important and making an opening post isn't as easy as making a reply. It requires to be made in the right forum; it requires an argument or philosophical question; it has to be of a certain length and the post's title has to match the contents. Having someone to make sure you went through all these steps makes sense. As a queue moderator, I do not have myself to fix all the mess that poor opening posts create and so I think Scott's decision is very justified.

Yes, that's exactly why queue moderators posts aren't sent to the queue. And thank you for your other comments.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:25 pm to add the following --

Topic approval required is an excellent idea to prevent frivolous non philosophical topics from being posted. I had actually decided not to bother with the forum because of so many of them but will check the Forum out more often now.

I am glad to hear this. If you have anymore feedback, please send me a PM. I think we have a great opportunity to step up the quality of the forum by ensuring the forum rules are followed.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:29 pm to add the following --

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.

What browser do you use? Most computer browser's come with a built-in spellchecker. For almost all users, adding a server-end spellchecker would be redundant and not worth the effect on website speed. There is a preview button.

Alternatively, if your browser doesn't have a spellchecker, I would suggest drafting the new topic in Word or a similar word processor yourself and then copying and pasting it into the forum.

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.

What do you mean by censorship? Several users have mentioned this, but I don't understand. The forum rules are public. Posts that follow the rules are to be approved; posts that do not follow the rules are to be disapproved. That's how it has been all-along; the change here is that the post is held so a moderator can review it before it is made public so that if it is rule-breaking it can be disapproved before being public rather than get deleted after being posted.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:36 pm to add the following --

If the thought police seriously want to elevate the quality of debate on this site then I suggest they get rid of all the religious fanatics who are abusing it to preach their fundamentalist ********. Proselytising a belief does not constitute a philosophical position and the pulpit preachers never make any attempt to support their views with reasoned argument.

The forum rules prohibit preaching. All new topics must make an argument (as opposed to just preaching) or pose a philosophical question. It is unreasonable to complain that such rule-breaking material is on the site in a general way. That is why there is a report button and why there is a Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions. How dare one see rule-breaking content, not report it, and then complain that the moderators haven't done anything about it. Perhaps if the report button had been used more reliably in the past, we wouldn't need this change to have new topics require approval. But alas the moderators and I are not psychic, and the moderators volunteer their time so it is utterly unreasonable to expect them to find rule-breaking posts on their own without holding them in a moderation queue. This forum gets a lot of posts, and a person cannot read through all of them.

-- Updated 25 Oct 2014 07:37 pm to add the following --

Do we get a message back if a specific post was not approved and the reason why?

Yes.

[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.

If there will be too much censorship at this forum someone here could maybe decide to create a new philosophical forum without censorship? Creating a forum is not hard at all with websites and with PHP it isn't that hard neither, but it's better to use a website with which you can create a forum.

-- Updated October 30th, 2014, 7:22 pm to add the following --

This site defines itself as a philosophy forum, not a religious forum, of which there are no doubt plenty. Religion is a legitimate subject of philosophical enquiry because it is a definable and observable phenomenon. The existence or non-existence of god is not such a subject. Therefore using a forum such as this as a pulpit is offensive to those who value the validity of philosophy as a tool to aid the advance of human knowledge.

Regards Leo

I think though that Kierkegaard is a good example of a combination of religion and philosophy. You can perfectly fine have a philosophical discourse in which you include your religion as a religious person.

-- Updated October 30th, 2014, 7:28 pm to add the following --

From what I read of Scott I don't expect this forum to become a censored forum, I see quite open discussions there, I just wanted to say that more censorship wouldn't mean that you can't make other places to discuss philosophy openly possible.

[Reitia]

Dear Scott,

I have just tried to post a totally inoffensive topic: religious dualism. Why does this need to be approved? Is this historical theme offensive to anyone? I never use nasty or abusive language in my posts. That would go against the true spirit of philosophy.

[Obvious Leo]

That would go against the true spirit of philosophy.

Welcome to the sublime being transmogrified into the ridiculous.

Regards Leo

[Reitia]

My comment was sent to Scott. It was no more offensive than my (unapproved) post. If the desire to remain respectful and serious is "ridiculous", then philosophy and those who profess to follow it have really fallen into an abyss. The TRUE spirit of philosophy resides in a rational quest for truth, not in insulting one another.

[Okisites]

Moderators and contributors are exempt from being on the moderation queue.

I am still looking for volunteer queue moderators.

Make me a moderator.

Okay, you did not seems to argue for this move, that why moderation is really necessary before posting it publicly. Why you don't want to argue your position?

Why you think that Moderators/Contributors are really honest about moderating? On what grounds you exempted them from being in moderation queue?

-- Updated 02 Nov 2014, 15:44 to add the following --

What if this system of moderation is actually a mean to curbing freedom of speech, like not allowing anythings against Homosexuality, Pedophilia, Incest, Religion, Atheism, Government, Judiciary etc.? How can you say that this new policy of moderating every post is not a means to fulfill these objectives?

Why you think the old members whom so many people observed for quite a long time, for not going against the rules, will suddenly do mistakes or misbehave and give the topics which is rule breaking? Why can't you trust old members at least?

Why you trust your Moderators and Contributors for the same?

What if your Moderators/Contributors are using this system for disapproving a Post/Poster on the basis of Racism, Personal dislike, Religious/Atheistic fanaticism, Bias etc.?

I suggest you to try design some better and transparent system where your and your moderators intentions will automatically be perceived or proved as really and completely and genuinely honest, with no sign of dishonesty and conspiracy.

But please answer the above questions.

Thank You, Okisites.

[DarwinX]

The true scott has emerged. I'd always suspected that the mysteriously benevolent Scott would be replaced by his darkside twin brother before too long. Now, were are going to have to get past Mr Darkside Teletubby in order to get our thoughts published online. What chance has a thought criminal like me got of getting anything published now?

[Robert66]

Arguments needn't be sound, and lies may be told, though it's not allowable to call someone a liar.

What about propagandist? Is it allowable under the rules for me to call UniversalAlien a propagandist?

[DarwinX]

Make me a moderator.

Don't make me a moderator. That would be a very bad move. Within a week all the cockheads would be tossed out of the joint and only the proper contributors would be left. However there might be a plus side. Maybe some of the serious players might come back and turn this back into a philosophy forum.

Regards Leo

In order to be a moderator you have to be moderate. Thus, you don't qualify under the basic terminology of the word, that's before we even get to the more demanding criteria. No, you're dead right. I wouldn't even vote you in as a resident troll.

[Okisites]

[…]

For Example, here is one thread I had recently posted, and is disapproved for having a grammatical and spelling mistakes. Here it is:-(It is named as "Your preference: Politics(Government) or Judiciary?"

I just wanted to know, what is your preference for your and your country's betterment. Is it a Politics, which can serve you better, OR it is a Judiciary which is better for you to get justifiable place in your country?

I suppose both are very powerful in your respective countries, and is able to provide you most desirable situation and circumstances. But I am confused what you prefer, Politics or Judiciary. They are both very powerful. Almost similar to each other in powers for controlling the country.

So, what you like to prefer, Politics(Or Government) OR Judiciary, for the betterment of yours and your respective countries?

I think it's a simple question, comparing between Judiciary and Politics, both of which can provide you anything that is right and justifiable, as per your need. But what you think is the most effective to have a fair share as a citizen of a country?

I do not have any agenda or guide about these, so I might keep myself away from the topic and may not respond, but I really want your responses, what really you prefer for your betterment, Judiciary or Politics, as both of them are really extremely powerful to provide whatever you want.

thank You, Okisites.

Here is an online tool for spelling and grammar check:-

http://www.gingersoftware.com/grammarcheck#.VFZzgzTGfeN

I have checked my spelling and grammar in this site, and I have found no mistakes. Tell me if you find mistakes in that disapproved thread.

You know why such things are possible to do. Because it is done in a closed room where nobody is hearing your judgement, and generally people get trapped in it thinking that they might be wrong.

So passing judgement dictatorially in a closed room without any obligation to prove and defend yourself, have no proof that you are really honest with your judgement, or really capable of passing the judgement, or just simply a damn fool. You can be anything, a dishonest person, a incapable person, or a damn fool, and you are never going to be judged.

Therefore I would say that this system should be well checked for its effectiveness for the betterment of the site and the conversations going on, otherwise it might be possible that the site is only going to be ruled by cockheads.

This system has too many drawbacks if you will ask me, and has no significance, at least for disallowing the thoroughly observed older members.

Thank You, Okisites.

[Misty]

Hello Okisites,

The "a" is not needed before Politics and Judiciary. Perhaps the word Political should have been used. Sentence structure is important. Clarity, being concise and non repetitive is helpful.

However, people come from all over the world speaking different first languages, so some grace should be used in this forum. I usually can understand what you are saying and your thoughts are right up there with the best on this PC.

We all make mistakes in all areas of writing and speaking.

Misty

[Okisites]

Hello Okisites,

The "a" is not needed before Politics and Judiciary. Perhaps the word Political should have been used. Sentence structure is important. Clarity, being concise and non repetitive is helpful.

However, people come from all over the world speaking different first languages, so some grace should be used in this forum. I usually can understand what you are saying and your thoughts are right up there with the best on this PC.

We all make mistakes in all areas of writing and speaking.

Misty

Thank you for pointing out my mistakes but why these minor mistakes are so important then the real important topics. I think, if I am not a native speaker, and secondly that I can be understood fairly by other, why there is a need to stop me to contribute to the forums. Why spelling and grammar is more important than a topic itself.

Why to expect so much perfect English from non-native speakers, who is not used to speak in English, and yet allowed to speak up in the forums for almost 2 years and nearly 1000's of posts between. I am sorry to use this language in front of you, but why these son of bitches suddenly changed their attitude towards the replies and posts, which is more important then just spelling and grammar. They don't want to defend their positions, don't wanted to argue why they are right, just wanted to do whatever they seems right, why such attitudes comes in just after these bastards moderators came in? Why they don't wanted to argue their position? What is it so that they just think they are right and need not any clarifications and justification of their position? When these son of bitches will understand, what is more important in comparison? These newly came moderators bringing up huge changes,and also do not wanted to argue about that.

I am sorry to use this language in front of you, Mam, but this language is very useful for such people. Believe me.

I feel it really badly to talk with you like this, but I can't really handle such moves without clarifications. This must be clarified.

Thank You, Okisites.