Moderators Needed for the New Philosophy Forum Group on A2K

I can perhaps answer the first question, namely about the Philforum Rules. Yes they will be different, although not much different than those that guide many other forums on the Internet, and PfG Members will also be bound by the A2K rules as well. The PfG rules (as I have drafted them for community discussion and approval) are designed to focus posts on discussion of "philosophical" topics as such, or upon other subjects from a "philosophical" point of view. Just as importantly, Moderators will "enforce" these rules far more strictly than, say, in A2K.
In addition to rules allowing focused discussions (nothing is more disconcerting to be engaging in a discussion about a problem than to have to run through two pages of chatter or conversations between two or three people), the topic subjects will be far more organised and "logical" than in the A2K forums, and the staff will move posts/threads to more appropriate forums if out of place.

Don't pick Mark, it's not smart and it sure aint clever.

Hi!

Nor is referring to people as 'pricks' or 'idiots'.

Mark...

Well spendi is a troll that makes him a prick in my eyes, god get a grip mark.

The expostulation of philosophical positions sometimes takes the forum of "formal arguments and debate" and hopefully PfG will have special forums for this exercise one it gets going. But for the most part philosophical discussions differ from other subjects in their careful articulation and "logical" style. As many discussions concern themselves with what a philosopher "meant" in a particular text, or what other philosophers thought was meant, it is expected that citations follow those commonly accepted within the philosophical community, especially if someone wants to submit a short essay or book review for example.

This does not imply, though, that every post be an exemplar of "academic" style or content, although many threads will tend in that direction. I think it does imply that posts will evidence careful thought and some greater precision in writing than found in general forums, and certainly that any sort of discourtesy to other posters or their comments will be avoided.

Hi John how are you, nice to see you as always.

Have you given any thought to how you and Robert will handle any cross-pollination between the group and the main A2K forum that will probably occur? .

For example, what will be the decorum and moderation for instances where people want to copy and paste posts from/to the group or A2K philosophy forum to spark a discussion or point out inconsistencies in a person's thought process between the two?

Let's say that Mark and Caroline are members of the Phil group and also post on the A2K philosophy forum (we need to come up with a better shorthand description for these) and in the group discussions, Mark says the sky is green, but on the A2K phil forum Caroline reads that he is now saying the sky is orange and copies his "the sky is green" post from the group to the A2K phil forum and his "the sky is orange" post from A2K phil forum to the Phil group to point out his inconsistencies.

When A2K had groups several years ago, we experienced such bleed through so you'll probably experience it too and will need some guidelines for it. Would such a thing be accepted or would it be a breach of the intent to isolate the group's discussions? Would such a thing be moderated?

Thanks.

No.

But I would think that "what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas" as it were would be a guiding principle. I think it would be unfair, for example, to hold someone making a perhaps casual remark in A2K to a more stringent examination in the PfG (I don't see how much shorter we can make the two shorthands).

I alsosuppose that having (roughly) the same conversation in both groups would be not only counter-productive but difficult to keep separate (because of different standards, etc.) for the poster as well as Others reply in both.

On the other hand (tiptoe) there may be legitimate cases in which the original poster might want to copy and paste (perhaps with modifications) a post from one to the other place, either to start a more serious thread in PfG, or to make a valuable contribution to an existing topic there.

It would be difficult to make a hard and fast "rule" about it, since it would depend upon the particular instance. I think it important to remember that everyone will have to "feel their way" around the new group, and that this includes the staff representatives. A lot of things will have to be muddled through, especially at the begining, and a consensus will have to be formed about many cases.

The PfG will be like the old Philosophy Forum, and at the same time different, simply because of the addition of new Members through time and the process of organic development within the community itself. You never step into the same forum twice.

Hi Caroline.

'Get a grip', 'Chill out'. You are projecting. Are you under the impression I am somewhat removed from a calm and considered state of being? I am not.

You appear to be a highly emotional person Caroline, but don't think everybody else is.

I pop in here a few times a day. I don't live, breathe and eat the forum 24/7, like some (not referring to you). Such is addiction, and one who opens themself up to such, is going to become a part of the collective mindset that exists here, and on other forums.

This, to me, is a sorrowful state to find oneself in.

Your personality demands that you respond to this, for you MUST have the last word. I hope your response is less judgemental of me and my state of being than those prior.

Have a splendid day Caroline!
Mark...

(4) is exactly the sort of folk we hope develop with time! When I gave those three options, I wasn't saying they were the only options - just that those were the groups that had been referred to and were relevant to the discussion at the time.

Those who tried to participate in the A2K main site were harassed? I wasn't privy to this.

If they are of the nature you say, whoever they are, they probably won't last long in the new group. Harassment definitely won't be tolerated.

Is this "have a wonderful day" stuff an example of word magic operating at a distance? I don't see how you ordering me to have a "brilliant day", as you did, from wherever you are can have the slightest effect on my day.

I hope I'm not being too pedantically philosophical. Is it a sarcastic remark?

Judging from Caroline's posts above and those on the saving our earth thread she has not got a philosophical bone in her body. Which is as it should be of course as philosophy is a chap's thing apart from Marghanita Laski. I've not read her Little Boy Lost yet but I intend to.

Caroline has even admitted that she was bored on the old forum, as philosophy wasn't something she was particularly interested in.

But what is the need to call her out here? I'm not understanding where you're coming from.

Hi Zeth!

Thank you for verifying that.

Journey well!
mark...

Hi Spendius!

Can't have an effect?? It entered your mind - you processed it - considered it - analysed it - concluded your analysis - chose to respond - analysed your respone and typed it here. You are now awaiting a reply to conclude whether I was being sarcastic, demanding, genuine, none or all of. If you are interested in my response when you read it, you will further respond.............. And it can't possibly affect you? I call that affected.

My gesture toward you or anyone is GENUINE, I assure you. If you would rather I didn't type any to you? just ask. I will then convey my gesture in my mind only and you will be unaware of it.

I hope your day is lovely Spendius!
Mark...

I was thinking in terms of you signing off all your posts in a similar fashion being like those people who say "have a nice day" to everybody they come across. Overuse produces meaninglessness after a fairly short period although I'll accept it must have a meaning to those who do it. Perhaps they like to think that waves of bonhomie and goodwill spread out from their person.

I may be one of the people that you speak of and when I say have a nice day or something to that affect I am only meaning that I hope that your day ends well and I am thanking you for the time that you have shared with me in your day.

Here is the strange part! Sometimes the person I say it to could have come across as a ASS but I still hope that his day may get better so that the next person he encounters may be greeted with kinder words.

You're a saint rl.

This might be an interesting socio-linguistic topic, given that people discuss it without animosity. At what point does a genuine compliment or good sentiment become trite and meaningless?