Moderators Needed for the New Philosophy Forum Group on A2K

What is it excatly that you don't understand? I belive it's put in layman terms.

Besides, why am I not allow being dualistic? It's a natual human trait.

Hex, I'm sure you can see how your post was offensive. Clearly this forum is not unacceptable to many people here, as many people here call this place their home. Moreover, you've been here for the last 2 months, and so if the situation was so unacceptable, I'm puzzled you stayed.

The bottom line is, no one likes to see their home nonchalantly insulted. If you don't like the place, that's fine. But many people do and obviously aren't going to take kindly to your bashing.

You can understand that, right?

There is that, I suppose.

Why you made such damning comments. That's what I asked you about.

In my post to you, I said:




And I believe you haven't given any specific reasons for your damning assessment of this site. All we have is your opinion.



I believe you're talking evasive gobbledygook here.

So I can assume you continue to hang around this forum is because you enjoy being affronted by the crass rubbish you see all around you? Or perhaps you have some other purpose?

I sort of like Hex, but he is a bludgeon specialist, in my view.

This is not new to the forum, but it is new that he then goes on and on and on against the vileness of a2k, apparently on some moral basis not well described.
(We are not controlled in our posts? We don't fit his morals?)
and then rails against the forum wherein he can post.

Ok, nobody asked me.



Backing off. I'm just talking. I need to be quiet until you folks work out what you want. Ok, ok, I promise.

Not crazy about "bludgeon specialists", myself.
Unless they they make an excellent case for why, exactly, they're bludgeoning.

I think he may just not be understanding of communities that don't have top-down moderation. While I prefer top-down moderation myself, I can certainly see the appeal of this community. And, as I noted earlier, I even prefer the freedom at moments.

Hex, tell us what the real issue is.

I confess to an occasional yearning for top-down moderation.

But I don't think the nature of A2K's moderation here is the sole problem for Hex, roger. (And from the little I've picked up here, the defunct philosophy forum site encountered a few of its own moderating difficulties ...)
I suspect it's culture clash (compared to what he's been used to) as much as anything ...

Assuming you're not being sarcastic Olga I think "Those are very damning assessments" is a lot over the top. Hex's remarks are meaningless. No intelligent person would take the slightest notice of them.

I thing the word "hexhammer" is a corruption of the translation of Malleus Maleficarum which is Hammer of Witches. It is the title of a notorious book of Roman Catholic theology written in the late 15 century. It defines "witch" and explains procedures for dealing with them.

It would help if you had put it more scientifically Hex. I don't think " layman terms" are much use. They are known to allow many different interpretations some of which can be opposites. Philosophy is an attempt to avoid "layman terms" in the interest of exactitude of meaning.

If rigid moderation was a motivating factor, then one would assume that Hex and others of the same mindset, would use some self moderation in the form that he expects others to conform to. Therefore, I must come to the conclusion that you are correct in your assessment.

I am also prone to wonder if the newfound lack of rigid moderation is the cause of some of what we are seeing from what otherwise may be intelligent and open thinkers.

It should be obvious, to most, that there are a lot of threads being started that are nothing more than baits to lure people to insult and ridicule. They start with the premise of asking a question and then those who attempt to answer said question are pummeled with why they are wrong and are not considering this or that. Of course, the this or that are added by the author after the fact. I wonder if the same tactics were used in the old Philforum.

So do I. More generally, some of those poster's debating styles seem optimized to game a system of rigid, rule-driven moderation. They don't just insult and ridicule, but do it in a way that doesn't technically violate any moderable rules or stray off topic. Having observed that, I'm pessimistic about Zetherin's and Craven's project to create a heavily-moderated subforum. But it can't hurt to try, and I do wish them luck.

Agreed

There will always be issues like the one you speak of. It just comes with the territory and you have to work with it.

Do know, however, that the people that will be part of this team are experienced, and most have moderated before in the past (either for other forums, the old philforum, or both). So, this sort of project won't exactly be new to the people involved - again our old forum, just 2 months ago, was this way. I only remind you because your pessimism seemed to spawned from your thinking that we haven't dealt with a rigid, top-down moderated system before, but I just wanted you to know we have and will most certainly be expecting the sort of issues you speak of

It's just that we have yet to see it.

I disagree. You can't game the system where there is no system to game. That's why I admire Robert's and Jespah's approach of providing only the minimal system it takes to prevent carnage and blight.


Or you can avoid the territory in the first place. Actually, that's my point: it comes with the territory. Consequently, I consider any expedition into it a display of masochism on the prospective moderators' part. But it goes without saying that that's your business. Good luck!

Sorry, I meant that there is often (perhaps I shouldn't have used "always") those sorts of issues when there is strict top-down moderation. And it's much more pronounced when the subject matter elicits intellectual posturing (such as with philosophy).

I'm not sure I understand your comment about masochism, but thanks for the luck!

I think most of us would agree that moderation, alone, won't cure all ills. But done right, it can go a long way to actually encourage free idea-flow. Not so much by the *specific* issues that get moderated; but by its very presence it discourages those behaviors that discourage EVERYONE posting how they feel.

The thing is, most people tend to think in only two-dimensions; as if moderation quells all stray thought, deletes irrelevant topics and bans anyone not falling in line with the rest of the ducks. Of course that's not the truth of it at all.

Someone asked how this thread might have been moderated in the old PF. Ultimately that answer depends on who's doing the moderating and what standing guidance those moderators had. Personally, I'd have let the topic stray quite a bit (since that seems to be what most posters want). After some point; however, I'd probably first make a post that helped to bring it back to the reason for its existence ("Any more volunteers out there?") - a kind of passive moderation. For those who just love to caress their ego by flinging personal insults, these fine bed-wetting babies would probably start off with a warning (with the personal insults removed or dealt some other way as deemed appropriate); subsequent infractions would be addressed depending on their severity, impact on others, etc. (once again, however management wants to). Trolling wasn't prohibited at all in the old forum and probably isn't something moderation can do anything about, really. And truth be told, Trolls can actually liven up a dead thread quite nicely and only do personal 'damage' when someone decides to let them under their skin - something no amount of moderation can fix.

In any case, we found out a long time ago that moderation was an art that required VERY mature people who used whatever authority in the most sparing fashion. Personal slamming was a no-no; not because we wanted a hand-holding, fuzzy-wuzzy bear-hug atmosphere, but because its actually counterproductive to the very reason we're here: the unimpeded flow of thoughts and ideas. It seems like a contradiction (that one must "impede" insulting to lessen impediments - but its' not; mainly because the focus should always remain on a view, idea, thought or someone's ideas - insult the idea, not the person). Racial slams (and other negative stereotyping) was dealt with very carefully - since so many social issues include this element. Some were flat-out banned while other threads were left to go where they may.

Philosophy isn't debate, nor need it have anything to do with it. As a matter of fact, debate is a poor word for contextualizing the whole philosophical process. It's much more a discovery of sharing, questioning, clarifying, responding and evaluating - there really needn't be any 'debate' at all. Those who've become accustomed to equating one with the other are way off base and do the philosophy a disservice (which is especially true since western culture places 'debate' and 'argument' on the same plane). Even so, these were allowed to go to fruition in the old PF.

Many threads here on A2K (probably most of the popular ones) are almost identical, in subject matter, as they were back on the Philosophy Forum. My guess is that this similarity is part of the reason Robert saw potential for a good purchase - they're just not that different. Social Philosophy is alive and well here; the only substantive difference is that flaming, insulting, racism and the like are allowed free reign here. This isn't always bad - its a judgment call. On the plus-side, there's a genuineness there that brings forth the "rawness" of relevant issues. But like all things, there's a price to pay (nothing comes "free" - for all benefits gained, there's a flipside). In this case, it quells participation since, thin-skinned or not, you'll end up with many hesitant to express in an environment where it doesn't feel welcome. Many will stand fast in this environment; but its limiting and self-defeating in some ways - all dependent on how you look at it.

I'm hanging out because I still have folks I like to correspond with here (publically only, of course, since I - and a number of us - are still given the daily PM's disabled-reminder that we're not 'trusted') and I'm very curious to see how this Moderated-subforum experiment goes. We've all experienced some hesitance since the transition; but for me, I think that's more due of my preconceptions rather than the environment here at large. Knowing change involves such upheavals; I'm still 'suspending judgment' for a time to allow myself the opportunity to integrate.

As far as the bitterness from PF goes; anyone still pissing about that situation REALLY needs to let it go. The reasonable time for moaning, bitching and mourning is WAY done and for those few who have been empathetic to our 'plight'; many thanks! For those who've already stereotyped us into one large bunch of pseudointellectual-bitchers; you've revealed yourselves for the judgmental bigots you are, congratulations and **** you too.

I'm glad to see Zeth on board with this. I moderated for some time with him on the PF and know him to be someone who moderates with the lightest touch - yet with firm conviction when the situation warrants. Jg also is a good one to have in your corner; consistent, loyal and dependable (almost to a fault).

Finally, three questions (then I'll shut up):

1. So whom all have you got to moderate? Have you enough yet?
2. Any idea when the OPEN sign goes up?
3. Will we have to do anything specific to join up, or will it be automatic by replying or posting?

Thanks - and apologies for the length here.

My question is still whether they are going to have moderators who despise philosophy as did the former incarnation?