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

[Mgrinder]

I would like to complain to Scott about this whole trial member business. New people to this forum can't be replied to unless someone with enough status comes along and "approves" their post.

(1) This is annoying to me, because I have enough status to "approve" because I made myself a contributor so I could force my posts onto the forum without Scott approving them. The approval process can take alot of time.

Then I discover that I have the power to "approve or disapprove" posts of "trial members". So now I find myself morally obligated to approve things for people who would like someone to talk to. Scott isn't doing it, so I do it, and it's fairly annoying for me to pay money to do Scott's job for him.

I would be happier if there was no approval disapproval feature. Just let it go and if there is a problem, deal with it as it comes up. Let people be. Particularly since nobody will keep on top of it.

(2) It seems to me to be a bit of a freedom of speech issue. It's like censorship.

(3) Discourages new people to the forum.

Needless to say, once I've managed to get the desired quality of comments about my theories from the nice people of this forum who want to comment on my thoughts, I will stop my payments and stop being a contributor. I will do this because this this silliness with "new trial members" annoys me.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Mgrinder,

Thank you for your feedback.

Scott's job for him.

I wouldn't say it's my job. This is mostly because I expect that if I have job, then that job should enable me to feed my children. I'm pretty sure if I put in the all time required to read all the submissions to this website--which I grant is my website--that my children would starve.

I would be happier if there was no approval disapproval feature.

It used to be like that. Unfortunately, it seems the people who are attracted to a site like this are often a lot more willing to either post without consideration of the rules or to post in knowing violation of the rules. I guess a philosophy and debate forum attracts rebellious types of people... ?

The rule-violating posts actually become much harder to clean up after the fact, and lead to a lot of complaints by people that the moderators and I aren't doing our job. I would agree I have much more of a responsibility regarding what is published on my platform--be it a website or a printed magazine--as opposed to what is not published. Indeed, I recall a member one time told me he reported the website and me personally to the FBI because of something I allowed a different member to post.

(2) It seems to me to be a bit of a freedom of speech issue. It's like censorship.

I have to disagree with this. This is a private platform, and I am not wielding the influence of government police or government lawmakers. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to decide who I let into my home at my dinner table and thus doesn't mean I cannot put limitations on what someone at my dinner table can say at my dinner table while they are at my dinner table. Nor would I say it is my job to open the doorbell when it rings.

(3) Discourages new people to the forum.

It is unfortunate. I would love to do something to make the approval process faster to encourage new members.

On the other hand, I think having posts on the site that are in violation of the forum rules is even more discouraging to new members who are here to have discussions in forum free of ad hominem arguments and derailing off-topics.

Mgrinder, I deeply appreciate your feedback. I wish their was an easy solution because I passionately believe in the value of an open discussion forum that is simultaneously uncensored in one deep sense but strictly moderated to be free of ad hominem arguments and off-topics. I will think about your feedback and hopefully we can move to a better system on all fronts in time.

[Mgrinder]

(3) Discourages new people to the forum.

It is unfortunate. I would love to do something to make the approval process faster to encourage new members.

On the other hand, I think having posts on the site that are in violation of the forum rules is even more discouraging to new members who are here to have discussions in forum free of ad hominem arguments and derailing off-topics.

I've been posting with Daniel Mckay and I ahve approved at least ten of his posts. Maybe the threshold to make him a "full member" or whatever the title is be dialed back to two posts, instead of however many there is? How much is the threshold anyways? The same goes for "jamesofSeattle"..

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Unfortunately, the simple reality is if the moderation isn't there it isn't there. Whether the posts are publicly visible or awaiting moderation, the forum cannot get anywhere near its goal without the moderation to maintain the forum rules. I don't feel comfortable publishing unmoderated material from strangers and storing that material on my computer. I will put up the moderator help request announcement again. Hopefully, that will help.

[Mgrinder]

Unfortunately, the simple reality is if the moderation isn't there it isn't there. Whether the posts are publicly visible or awaiting moderation, the forum cannot get anywhere near its goal without the moderation to maintain the forum rules. I don't feel comfortable publishing unmoderated material from strangers and storing that material on my computer. I will put up the moderator help request announcement again. Hopefully, that will help.

Are we talking about the same thing?

That doesn't answer my question about how many posts someone needs to put up before they are no longer a "trial member". How many is it, and why is it more than 10? Why can't it be less?

Plus, they can't even post a link. Doesn't help people who want to bring attention to something they wrote. What's the harm in a link?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Mgrinder,

We are talking about the same thing, but I'm sorry I wasn't clear. The problem with not holding posts in the moderation queue is the same problem that causes the posts to not get approved quickly, which is why it's bothersome that they are held in the moderation queue at all. That problem is lack of moderation. If the posts aren't being moderated in the queue, then they aren't going to be moderated after default publication either, which means there would be unmoderated material from very new members out there for a long time. I do not feel comfortable with being the person to publish such un-moderated material by way of my computer where it is stored.

Regarding the question about links, I'd estimate about 100,000 posts have been blocked due to the automatic link block on new members. Many for porn sites, knockoff designer clothes/accessories selling sites, allegedly cheap drugs, etc. Almost all are against the forum rules. There is no way a human being could deal with these.

The threshold is 20 posts. After years of trial and error, this seems to be what leads to a rough equilibrium between the level of moderation and the reliability that a new member will follow the rules based on previous approved post count.

It should be noted that one problem is--for example--that a new member can sign up and easily make 20 posts in a single day. Half of the the post might be against the rules and get disapproved, for example, while the other half would then be approved giving the member a post count of 10. There have been members who had post counts in the thousands who were ultimately banned or put on a custom limited access after dealing with their rule-breaking posts became too time-consuming for the moderators and/or too disruptive too the intended forum experience for other members.

-- Updated 07 Dec 2015 01:32 pm to add the following --

It's a lot words and back and forth for a problem that is kind of simple: There is simply too much moderating work to do and no way to get it done. Changing the post count thresholds or allowing links isn't going to solve that problem; I don't think. The moderators already on board, the longest one running I think being Spiral Out, have already for a long time been doing way more than their fair share. It's thanks to them that forums are still online at all, I think, and that anyone is able to post anything.

[Mgrinder]

Mgrinder,

We are talking about the same thing, but I'm sorry I wasn't clear. The problem with not holding posts in the moderation queue is the same problem that causes the posts to not get approved quickly, which is why it's bothersome that they are held in the moderation queue at all. That problem is lack of moderation. If the posts aren't being moderated in the queue, then they aren't going to be moderated after default publication either, which means there would be unmoderated material from very new members out there for a long time. I do not feel comfortable with being the person to publish such un-moderated material by way of my computer where it is stored.

Regarding the question about links, I'd estimate about 100,000 posts have been blocked due to the automatic link block on new members. Many for porn sites, knockoff designer clothes/accessories selling sites, allegedly cheap drugs, etc. Almost all are against the forum rules. There is no way a human being could deal with these.

The threshold is 20 posts. After years of trial and error, this seems to be what leads to a rough equilibrium between the level of moderation and the reliability that a new member will follow the rules based on previous approved post count.

It should be noted that one problem is--for example--that a new member can sign up and easily make 20 posts in a single day. Half of the the post might be against the rules and get disapproved, for example, while the other half would then be approved giving the member a post count of 10. There have been members who had post counts in the thousands who were ultimately banned or put on a custom limited access after dealing with their rule-breaking posts became too time-consuming for the moderators and/or too disruptive too the intended forum experience for other members.

-- Updated 07 Dec 2015 01:32 pm to add the following --

It's a lot words and back and forth for a problem that is kind of simple: There is simply too much moderating work to do and no way to get it done. Changing the post count thresholds or allowing links isn't going to solve that problem; I don't think. The moderators already on board, the longest one running I think being Spiral Out, have already for a long time been doing way more than their fair share. It's thanks to them that forums are still online at all, I think, and that anyone is able to post anything.

You seem reluctant to make the screening process faster, for fear of abusive and advertising posts, fair enough. It's your site, it's your call on what to be afraid of or not. You are creating work that may not have to exist, and does not exist on other sites. But you seem afraid of a lawsuit, and I can emphasize. It's work you cannot keep up with, even with people that, ironically, pay money to you, then feel obligated to help you.

How about this - Give premium members like me the ability to grant "real membership" (whatever you call it) after 2 or 3 posts, otherwise leave it to 20. with some people like "Togo1" or "JamesofSeattle" or "daniel Mckay" it's obvious from the get go that they are serious posters. Just allow a bypass on obviously serious new posters. That'll cut the work down a bit.

[Lost]

I received an email inviting me to return to this forum. I tried to post a topic in the Philosopher's Lounge, but was not able to. I looked back at the email and realized it wasn't an invitation to join the discussions. It was just asking me to come look at the topics that have been posted.

Um.. thanks.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I received an email inviting me to return to this forum. I tried to post a topic in the Philosopher's Lounge, but was not able to. I looked back at the email and realized it wasn't an invitation to join the discussions. It was just asking me to come look at the topics that have been posted.

Um.. thanks.

I suspect you were able to post but the post was held for moderation. At this time, member's with a post count of less than 20 have their posts held for moderation before the posts become publicly visible.

[Ormond]

For whatever it's worth, I cast whatever little vote I might have for a mod reviewing all posts before they are published, if someone(s) is willing to do the job.

Forums that immediately publish pretty much anything from pretty much anybody inevitably slide down hill over time as the more interesting posters get bored and/or annoyed and wander off, a process that tends to accelerate as it proceeds.

However, I've been making this argument on MANY forums for almost 20 years, and know it is wildly unpopular. Thus, a policy of pre-approving all posts will probably be most effective when combined with a consistent outreach to intelligent bloggers touting the value of the pre-approval editing model.

Imho, the kind of writers you hope to have here have largely given up on forums, and will have to be persuaded this really is something different.

[Sy Borg]

I'm a new mod, so if a post is intelligible and respectful then I let it through. There are a number of technical rules I'm letting slide until I better understand how things are done behind the scenes.

[Nakul]

Well,
on 31st Dec I received a private message asking
"Hi,

Are you interested on metaphysics?"

The answer to this is yes I am interested in metaphysics and more. But I cant reply back to the person as I am a trial member? I think.

Well the person who has asked me, might feel that I am not replying for any reason, but the fact is that I would like to reply back by saying yes, but somehow I am not able to figure out how to do so thru the website itself. I hope this not because I am a trial member, if so, please Mr Administrator, do rectify this, this is quite annoying. Else let me know if there I something I am missing on the website to enable me to reply.

-- Updated January 4th, 2016, 1:14 pm to add the following --

Hi Scott,

So one of my posts has been blocked and a warning has been issued - thank you for issuing the same.
But the challenge remains - The challenge is that, I was trying to share a link which has a document (a completely harmless document but with an interesting perspective that arises from such a document) that I want everyone to read and comment upon, starting with you. Kindly do let me know how do I share the document with the discussion board members including you - thanks again
Further, how do I reply to the person who has sent me a private message asking ... (read my post above), in the name of civility I wish to reply to him as soon as possible, privately. So please enable me to do so. - thanks once again.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Well,
on 31st Dec I received a private message asking
"Hi,

Are you interested on metaphysics?"

The answer to this is yes I am interested in metaphysics and more. But I cant reply back to the person as I am a trial member? I think.

Well the person who has asked me, might feel that I am not replying for any reason, but the fact is that I would like to reply back by saying yes, but somehow I am not able to figure out how to do so thru the website itself. I hope this not because I am a trial member, if so, please Mr Administrator, do rectify this, this is quite annoying. Else let me know if there I something I am missing on the website to enable me to reply.

-- Updated January 4th, 2016, 1:14 pm to add the following --

Hi Scott,

So one of my posts has been blocked and a warning has been issued - thank you for issuing the same.
But the challenge remains - The challenge is that, I was trying to share a link which has a document (a completely harmless document but with an interesting perspective that arises from such a document) that I want everyone to read and comment upon, starting with you. Kindly do let me know how do I share the document with the discussion board members including you - thanks again
Further, how do I reply to the person who has sent me a private message asking ... (read my post above), in the name of civility I wish to reply to him as soon as possible, privately. So please enable me to do so. - thanks once again.

@Nakul You won't be able to share the link as a new member. Please create a new post with the text you want to share in the actual post. If the text is not your own, please summarize it to (a) not plagiarize the original and (b) make it easier for other members to join the discussion without having to read too much material.

[Nakul]

Thank you Scott , but this is where the details matter, the text would lose its purpose if abbreviated or summarized and in any case it is not my text. The exercise is to get peoples very brief view on a text that is unique.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Thank you Scott , but this is where the details matter, the text would lose its purpose if abbreviated or summarized and in any case it is not my text. The exercise is to get peoples very brief view on a text that is unique.

Unfortunately, this is not allowed by the forum rules. The idea is to make it so that members do not have to go read or watch something to participate in a specific topic.