Moderators Needed for the New Philosophy Forum Group on A2K

@Zetherin,

Will they be different than the posted GENERAL RULES AND DEFINITIONS that A2K already has in place?

I take it that it will be a forum within a forum with a separate login and membership to post. Is that correct?

1 Reply

Intrepid wrote:

Will they be different than the posted GENERAL RULES AND DEFINITIONS that A2K already has in place?

Yes, the philosophy group will have its own set of rules (the specifics are still being worked out). But most of them are rules that you've probably come across on various forums, including A2K.

Intrepid wrote:

I take it that it will be a forum within a forum with a separate login and membership to post. Is that correct?

I think Robert is the only one that can answer that affirmatively as of yet. From what I can tell, though, no, it is not a separate login or membership. This is a group within the A2K architecture. And that's how all future groups will be, too.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Thanks for the reply.

My reason for asking was because of an earlier post by Mark Noble

Quote:

I glance back over this thread and realise why it is so important for the two collectives to be seperated.

My only concern is the door that any newcomers to the philosophy group have to enter by is preceded by a foyer that, in my eyes, is comparable to hell. Does one dare to traverse the highway of despair, simply to find a homely sanctuary within? Does anyone dare to open pandora's box to discover that hope grants little more than a fleeting glimpse?

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Thanks for the reply.

My reason for asking was because of an earlier post by Mark Noble

Quote:
I glance back over this thread and realise why it is so important for the two collectives to be seperated.

My only concern is the door that any newcomers to the philosophy group have to enter by is preceded by a foyer that, in my eyes, is comparable to hell. Does one dare to traverse the highway of despair, simply to find a homely sanctuary within? Does anyone dare to open pandora's box to discover that hope grants little more than a fleeting glimpse?

I think he's being overdramatic. It's just going to be a philosophy forum.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

but that seems so unlike him....

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

I'm not sure what you're implying.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

It was sarcasm Wink

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Haha, ah alright.

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Yeah, I can't imagine either of them being overdramatic.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Quote:

(and so instead of just laxly discussing something, you may see formal arguments and debate).

This is from one of your posts. I'm trying to get an idea of what these "formal arguments and debate" would look like as compared to a more "laxly discussion" style about philosophy.

I'm also curious as to what sort of rules would be in place for a moderator to measure against to ensure the topics they moderate stand up to those standards. Would you require every comment be supported by a footnote with sources? Would there be a restricted list of acceptable sources? Would moderators be asked to remove posts that didn't conform?

Yes, I'm very familiar with general forum rules of conduct. However, I've never experienced forum rules which filter/censor/require a specific standard of style described as "academic." As Osso said, she's read that term in many PhilForum discussions since the merge with A2K. I'm trying to get a precise description or example of what an academic philosophy argument would look like on an internet forum and what standards a moderator would use to function in such an environment.

Some people refer to the old PhilForum as having a more academic vein. I haven't seen anything I'd think of as being "academic" in my admittedly brief skimming of freshly transferred old PhilForum topics while apply tags to them. I'd be grateful if you'd point one out to me that you are familiar with. In the meantime, I've fished around for some understanding of the sentiment.

Reading Webster's definition of "academic," there seems to be very opposite meanings of the word based on it being used as a noun or an adjective. Are these definitions a good basis for understanding the group's desired rules and standards for posting in it?

Quote:

Main Entry: 1ac·a·dem·ic
Pronunciation: \ˌa-kə-ˈde-mik\
Function: noun
Date: 1587

1 : a member of an institution of learning
2 : a person who is academic in background, outlook, or methods
3 plural : academic subjects <has no interest in academics>

Quote:

Main Entry: 2academic
Variant(s): also ac·a·dem·i·cal \-mi-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1588

1 a : of, relating to, or associated with an academy or school especially of higher learning b : of or relating to performance in academic courses <academic excellence> c : very learned but inexperienced in practical matters <academic thinkers> d : based on formal study especially at an institution of higher learning
2 : of or relating to literary or artistic rather than technical or professional studies
3 a : theoretical, speculative <an academic question> b : having no practical or useful significance
4 : conforming to the traditions or rules of a school (as of literature or art) or an official academy : conventional <academic painting>

1 Reply

Butrflynet wrote:

Would you require every comment be supported by a footnote with sources? Would there be a restricted list of acceptable sources? Would moderators be asked to remove posts that didn't conform?

No, no, no, none of this.

Butrflynet wrote:

However, I've never experienced forum rules which filter/censor/require a specific standard of style described as "academic.

No one here that was affiliated with the old forum used that word. It was osobucco, a user of A2K. All I tried to do was explain what he might have meant, and, as I noted, I used the word very loosely even in my post.

Butrflynet wrote:

I haven't seen anything I'd think of as being "academic" in my admittedly brief skimming of freshly transferred old PhilForum topics while apply tags to them. I'd be grateful if you'd point one out to me that you are familiar with.

The forum, for the most part, will just consist of posts that abide by the rules (again, they will be posted when the group is launched) and which are philosophically relevant. However, there may be people that post papers which they've submitted academically, and those submissions would probably have to abide by certain standards (for instance, MLA citation of sources), but again, this would make up a small portion of posts.

There also may be a debate forum, and these particular debates would have more stringent guidelines - getting into the realm of formal arguments and such. If you want examples of philosophical debates, I know of a site called freeratio.org that I believe hosts some. Here are their guidelines*: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=85871

* This is just to give you an idea. I have no clue if there will even be a formal debate section in the new philosophy forum group.

Once again, I believe you came in with a misconception of what the philosophy forum was about, because ossobuco, and perhaps someone else in the thread, used the word "academic". I simply meant philosophically relevant, which I clarified. Sorry for the confusion.

2 Replies

@Caroline,

Hi Caroline!

If you're a hermaphrodite maybe?

Sorry - couldn't resist!

Kind regards!
Mark...

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I think he's being overdramatic.

Am I? or are you being overjudgemental

You do no more with that statement than encourage the garbage-chatter I am referring to Zeth.

Mark..

1 Reply

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

My only concern is the door that any newcomers to the philosophy group have to enter by is preceded by a foyer that, in my eyes, is comparable to hell

To access the new philforum group, users have to go through hell? That seems to me overdramatic. But more, I don't even know why you would say something like that. Why would you liken what newcomers have to go through (what exactly do they have to go through, by the way?), to hell?

mark noble wrote:

Does one dare to traverse the highway of despair...

What? What in the world are you getting at?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

It wasn't just Osso and it isn't restricted to use in just this thread. Here are the uses by others just in this thread. If you need me to, I'll provide examples from other topics.

GoshisDead wrote:

A more academic style philosophical discussion follows a certain style that is not followed in the larger forum.

Caroline wrote:

I was bored with the old forum because it was becoming very academic and I'm not interested in it, there is an obvious a need for it so now we get the best of both worlds so a thanks is in order .

These are the sentiments that I was trying to get a better understanding about. One refers to "a certain style" that is desired, but doesn't describe it other than "academic." The other describes an undesired personality of a forum as being "academic" but doesn't define it. One is the noun definition while the other is the adjective.

I think the Webster's definitions give me the best understanding of these two opposing sentiments and how the rules and standards will probably function. Seems to me the philosophy group will be composed of the noun and will be based mostly on a style of theoretical interpretation of book references, while the mainstream A2k philosophy forum will be composed of both positive and negative aspects of the adjective to include practical experience that has no book reference as well as a theoretical interpretive content style.

2 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

Seems to me the philosophy group will be composed of the noun and will be based mostly on a style of theoretical and interpretation of book references, while the mainstream A2k philosophy forum will be composed of both positive and negative aspects of the adjective to include practical experience and theoretical content style.

As a moderator of the former philosophy forum, I can tell you there was no requirement for references of any sort on the old site. And, as far as I know, the new group will not require them either. Jgweed even said himself that he encourages people, even without a background in philosophy, to join. So, I am not sure why you would think that the new group will be based mostly on "a style of theoretical and interpretation of book references". Many who participate won't even know of any book references - the group is for those with a common interest, formally trained and newcomers alike!

If people used the word "academic" to describe the old forum, they were using the term loosely. You're really reading entirely too much into the word, I'm sorry to say.

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

What I meant Butterfly is that many are well read in philosophy, have been to or is at college studying philosophy and different theories and philosophers and converse together. I have no interest in this so I had nothing to say and so was bored. Btw I'm really glad we came here because to me life is about learning from one another in order to grow and I'm not specialized in philosophy so I was bored but not here.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

I'm a she. And I am not questioning the philforum wishing to have academic standards, and I'm sorry I spoke in that this is thread-distracting in itself, unless you folks want to loosen standards for some reason.

I'm sure I saw a comment about threads on the philforum being more academic -
but am not right now in the mood to chase from what post or posts on what thread.. I don't even remember what I said. I just got up to pour myself some water... heh, and checked the computer. I'll agree I take that academic (approaching) is the goal, and have no problem with it, not my business anyway.

We had a formal debate forum for a bit here in the early days, that meant to be rigorous, or at least not to be blasted with various interferences. I didn't participate in that either.

I plan to be quiet while you folks work out how you want your forum.

(goes off mumbling)

0 Replies

ossobucco wrote:

I'm sure I saw a comment about threads on the philforum being more academic

If someone said that, including myself, they were surely using the term loosely. There will not be, nor has there been, any requirements like the ones Butrflynet referred to. And there is no goal to achieve a forum with such stringent standards, as far as I am aware. Once again, we've invited everyone, regardless of background or knowledge, to join the group. The only requirement is that users obey the rules (which will be posted) and post things which are philosophically relevant.

Oh, and most of the threads from the old forum are here on A2K. Go see if any of them are abiding by "academic" standards. They're not. Smile

Sorry for the confusion.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Hi Zeth!

Take a step back for a moment. You were a moderator at the philosophy forum, and a good one as I recall.

One of the last issues before the move was the 'Flaming' thread where Ken was banned (you were the only mod that sided with ken). Here, the flaming is akin to thermonuclear warfare. I am only levelling the degree of variation in a descriptive fashion.

Why do you think virtually ALL the persons you once moderated with and over have chosen not to post here?

I can furnish you with every one of their e-mails, if you'd like to ask them. I assure you my reference to hell is far more forgiving than some of theirs. They haven't disappeared - They just don't see the point in wasting their time or intellect in a place that is not to their taste.

Have you considered why you are not on that list?

Have you considered?

Kind regards!
mark...

1 Reply

Moderators Needed for the New Philosophy Forum Group on A2K

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know