What criteria do the mods use?
What criteria do the mods use for the removal of posts and/or threads?
Case in point: the removal of the thread "Drowning Humanity" on which I had posted a comment or two.
What rule did the posts breach and how?
The guidelines say that the mods do not have to give reasons for such actions. Yet without that it is impossible to determine which rule , if any, was breached.
And without that information and with no obvious breach of a guideline, one can only conclude that the removal was arbitrary or perhaps it did not fall within some hidden agenda of the mods.
In either case it seems pointless in posting on this forum.
Case in point: the removal of the thread "Drowning Humanity" on which I had posted a comment or two.
What rule did the posts breach and how?
The guidelines say that the mods do not have to give reasons for such actions. Yet without that it is impossible to determine which rule , if any, was breached.
And without that information and with no obvious breach of a guideline, one can only conclude that the removal was arbitrary or perhaps it did not fall within some hidden agenda of the mods.
In either case it seems pointless in posting on this forum.
Comments (66)
Ok I have found the thread. So presumably it was just a few posts removed. But for what reason?
A chicken is slaughtered by the High Moderatum of the Forum who drags out the bird's innards onto the altar and searches for the gizzard. If the gizzard is found to be insufficiently bright and firm, the Post or Thread is struck from the record and the offal is then handed warm, wet, and stinking to the corroding and offensive author.
The chicken is forthwith barbecued and enjoyed by the Moderata on duty.
Hunger raises the standards by which the gizzard is judged.
In fact, you can take the very first post in that thread, by Thorongil, as an example of an acceptable post. If the rest were more like that, in terms of being on-topic and in terms of length, then I wouldn't have deleted them. Not all posts have to be lengthy, but the posts in that discussion could have been more substantial, and those who had posted replies in that discussion which got deleted could have put more effort into it.
Yes, basically.
See the site guidelines at the top of the home page. The site guidelines, and replies upon request, are all you're going to get, so if you expect anything else, like a rule book, then you're going to be disappointed.
Quoting A Seagull
It was obvious to me what was wrong, and it probably was - or would have been - obvious to others. I'm confident that any of the other site staff would have also seen it as a problem and taken action, or at least considered taking action.
Quoting A Seagull
Melodramatic.
Quoting Thorongil
It seems that the mods are pushing this place to become more academic and less communal. That is a mistake.
This is not what most people who participate on this forum want. A forum isn't an academic journal, and mixing the two doesn't work.
In the beginning, they allowed any kind of post pretty much (apart from obvious flaming, swearing, advertising, etc.). But with time, they've been tightening the standards, because the forum grew, and it's ranked #1 on Google for "philosophy forum", so it's much easier to be found organically.
It's a pity, but many of the people running this forum either have no interest to grow it, or if they do, they don't understand how to go about it (hint: give people what they want).
This forum doesn't intend to cater to the lowest possible denominator.
That's the kind of thinking that misses opportunities. Anyone who is interested in philosophy should be hooked in - it's not the healthy that are in need of a doctor, but the sick.
What opportunities? This isn't a business, in case you hadn't noticed. We're not looking for converts either as you seem to imply. It's a hobby for a dedicated team of moderators.
In any case, all this second guessing is a typical example of bachelors’ wives and maidens’ children being well taught. Feel free to start your own site and create your own opportunities. But I suspect you'll be around telling everybody else what to do without having any real accomplishments to your own name.
And you're proud of that? >:O In either case, I never implied that. You seem to have reading difficulties. Or comprehension difficulties. Either way, just to remind you:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Benkei
Everything is a business. Even a Church is a business. Any community is a business. Any organism is either growing or dying. To grow effectively, and in a lasting manner, it must cater to the needs of its people. It's quite simple. I know you have a personal vendetta against me, but it's not my fault that you can't put 2 and 2 together.
Quoting Benkei
>:O >:O >:O - you're talking to me about accomplishments? Don't make me laugh. Please. Before you make more of a fool of yourself look close to home. How much value have you added to this community? Think about that ;)
Yes, and my initial answer was an explanation as to why there is no interest but your usual recalcitrant nature interpreted it as an argument. To which I then replied, which you then bring back to your original point to point out you really don't have a point except sharing another useless opinion how things should work according to Agustino.
But hey, of course I'm the one that has a reading disability. :-}
Big surprise! Did you expect me to tell you how things should work according to my grandmother?! >:O
Geez Louise. :-O
Quoting A Seagull
Why does it matter? It can be a bit of a shock to your ego unless you - like myself - post certain things knowing that it could be deleted and then smile when it happens. Roll your eyes and move on, the forum is for intellectual fun that alleviates night-time boredom for those of us who are single and hate social networking.
You have my heartfelt sympathy.
Quoting Agustino
A community should have rules and respect. It isn't respectful to the creator of the discussion to fill up their discussion with low-quality or off-topic posts which get in the way of having the proper discussion which the creator of that discussion evidently desired, nor should it be tolerated by moderators.
Two people were engaged in a petty quarrel, and others only contributed single-sentence jokes.
(Y)
You are right about that, I agree.
Quoting Sapientia
Well I think the posts weren't getting in the way of anything. Actually quite the contrary: the thread is now long forgotten (almost off the first page) and those "off-topic" jokes etc. certainly got the thread starter more clicks on his thread by virtue of keeping it at the top for longer - and hence more people getting a chance to read his opening post. So the jokes were actually benefiting him - and if we were in a court of law, certainly an argument could be very successfully made that in this particular situation the benefit most certainly exceeded the harm.
If someone is interested to contribute, they are not harmed at all by the slightly off-topic posts. I mean, do you believe that I will stop having a proper discussion with you here because X, Y or Z starts talking about what a great night they had at the movies (completely off-topic this time)? I will just ignore them. Read the first two words of their post, see what it is about, and move on. But obviously I don't think completely off-topic posts should be allowed, but just giving a more extreme example so you understand.
Do you think, Sapientia, that there's something wrong if a thread has multiple conversations going on inside? I see this quite frequently. There are threads in which I participate where I'm speaking with say 2-3 other participants, and while that convo is going on, 2-3 others are speaking about something completely different - and I actually have no clue what exactly they're speaking about because I never read their conversation (well, usually).
Like look in this thread. I'm having a separate discussion with you, then TimeLine is making a separate comment to Seagull, etc. A thread is like a dinner party with multiple tables inside. People can move around, and go from table to table as they desire. When someone cusses at me - like Benkei - then obviously I will go off-topic to address it. But that doesn't ruin the rest of the thread, it's just like what would happen in an actual conversation.
There are many websites catering to the lowest common denominator, in every category of website you can think of. The achievement here lies in rising above the LCD and aiming for "mid-brow" quality. "High brow" quality (sites like Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy) requires major institutional support.
As for needing a doctor, we are not going to be the Mayo Clinic of philosophy websites. We are a volunteer-run aid station.
Quoting Agustino
What do you think the academic credentials of the moderators are? As far as I know, none of them are any more academic than you are. Like you they have jobs, families, laundry, meals, other interests--lives, in other words, that take up much of their time.
From what I can tell (and from experience here and on the other PF) they are serious readers of philosophy (far, far more than I am) and, for some odd reason, willing to slog through all the text we all generate. Their's is a tremendous contribution to the quality, consistency, and vitality of the site.
Quoting Agustino
Everything isn't a business; there are other models. I'd say we are an "enterprise of common interest". That any enterprise might have to rent a room or a server and software in which to meet doesn't make us a "business".
An organism grows if it meets its needs as the kind of organism it is. The Philosophy Forum caters to the needs of people who want a reasonably orderly, not academic but reasonably serious place to discuss philosophical ideas. The moderators and contributors make it "reasonably orderly" and "reasonably serious" or not.
I don't think anybody here is running a vendetta against you. You take 'minority positions' on many issues and defend them vigorously. This stimulates a lot of response from others, which is a very good thing. Don't take equally vigorous offense responses as vendettas; they are just "in kind" responses.
Exactly.
I should have known better than to derail the thread in trying to correct a grammatical error that in the end wasn't an error. I could have walked away but no, I had to continue to play with the language about the piece of pie. But it was meant in fun, I meant no harm and the word play actually alleviated the stress I am under (none of which should matter to my TPF family but having my Mother in law staying with us is enough said) if even just for a moment.
So Thank you Sapientia for cleaning up after I was playing in the thread. I will try to keep that thought play in the lounge.
I thought you'd understand and take it on the chin, and your reply has just confirmed that. If only others would take a leaf out of your book and not be so melodramatic. Comments like that one of yours that I deleted are really no big deal in and of themselves, and in isolation, I would have probably left it alone, but I judged that, collectively, it had gone a bit too far - two pages worth - and then I noticed that the original poster had expressed a complaint about it, which I could relate to and agreed with, so I took action. It really is no big deal, but I suppose there'll always be those who kick up a fuss - and they'll probably be joined by the likes of Agustino and Thorongil, who, in such circumstances, seem unable to resist an opportunity to stick their oar in, and jump at the chance to criticise moderator action.
Ah yes, the moderator's life. Such a hard lot.
Okay, I agree with all that. The target of this forum, the way I see it, is anyone seriously interested in a philosophy. That's what I mean (and thought Benkei meant) by LCD.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No doubt that moderating is important, and I agree the moderating team had been doing a good job initially. However, as the forum has grown and pressures have lessened (in terms of will the site be able to survive?), the quality of the moderation has degraded. There are several reasons for this:
• The obvious one - each member becomes less important when you have a way to get new members that's reliable and hard to overcome (organic reach) - thus moderators can enforce stricter standards, and even show bias, something that just wouldn't have made sense initially.
• People who moderated old PF have been appointed moderators here - which is a problem because that brought with it the same problems old PF was plagued by - the same kind of mindset.
• Moderators ALL share virtually the same religious outlook (atheists) - thus they cannot be unbiased, nor are they fully capable to determine what are good quality phil. of religion posts.
• Moderators (7 out of 8) are leftists, and therefore the forum carries a heavier political bias, with right-leaning views not being accepted or tolerated sufficiently - that's why innocent people like Emptyheady got banned - which is also the reason I had stopped posting in protest.
• Moderators never admit to being wrong (or better said, they're self-righteous) - which has caused schisms within the community, and has alienated some members, including, for example, the thread starter here.
Hopefully those points above are all clear. The solution?
Have a wider variety of moderators, holding different views, in order to ensure that as many people in the community as possible are adequately represented. Maybe even hold moderator elections. Decide on some standards for who can run (by post count, nomination, etc.) - cause we don't want someone who just came around to run for example - and do it. Moderators can then switch around, and the community can be adequately represented.
You saw the recent polls by Thorongil. There's a lot more right-leaning and religious people than we would have thought around. These people are being quiet for a reason, because their views aren't accepted in a friendly way. Not everyone is willing to fight like myself.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Okay, I didn't mean that we're a business in the sense of we're out here to make money. So don't misinterpret that. But we are out here to maintain & grow this community - hopefully - and if we're not, then I think we should be.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, yes, I agree with this.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Okay, but I didn't refer to people who just disagree with my positions. Yes, of course they're not running a vendetta, they're just expressing their views, just as I am. But some people do take things personally and are running a vendetta, I know that for a fact.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I don't - when they're about the issue, or even about myself in the context of the issue, I take no beef with it. But some people pop into threads out of nowhere just to insult (instead of add value or discuss the issue) - that, now, is a personal vendetta, that they should at least admit to.
You have that wrong, I'm all for a strong moderating team, but not for unnecessary interventions.
That would mean people like you stepping up to the plate. You too could be a moderator!
I would agree that the moderatori are more left than right, more atheist and less theist. This doesn't represent the demographic of the United States (which demographically is the opposite) but it might represent EU countries better. It does represent the academic faculty profile in the US which tends now to be more leftist and atheist.
I don't know whether my posts are getting weeded out or not, here or in the old PF. I don't know whether I'm getting a pass or not. I haven't been tracking it.
Were I a moderator, there are posts I would delete. A few people take offense too vigorously with too little provocation, and I would at least tell them to calm down. Some posters have very poor writing sills, and sometimes one can't really tell what they are trying to get at. Some posters are repetitious. Some, like me, are too verbose. Oops, verbosity reach critical stage... must stop.
No, I actually don't think I'm fit to be a moderator, but I would have other people to propose: Mariner, Thorongil, yourself, John and a few more! I'd aim for a mix between theist/atheist, progressive/conservative, just to make everything fair.
Quoting Bitter Crank
>:O
It matters to me because I am a philosopher. I like to understand things. Further I do not accept things at face value, I prefer to look beneath the façade.
I don't know why you think that was melodramatic, there are lots of other philosophy forums out there.
Perhaps the problem is that "The philosophy forum" is a bit of a misnomer. Perhaps you could rename it : "The subset of philosophy that allows for the deletion of posts based on arbitrary judgement and a hidden agenda forum." I know it is a bit of a mouthful, but at least you would avoid the risk of being done for false advertising. It could also be a point of difference between this forum and other philosophy forums.
What do you suppose that "hidden agenda" is? Or is it too well hidden for you to know?
As someone who's philosophy doesn't align with the mods, I've had plenty of fruitful discussions here, including my own topics. The key is to learn how to debate and discuss clearly and respectfully. Anyone can learn how to do that. If there's a liberal bias on this forum, it's because there's a liberal bias in philosophy. It's nothing to protest; use your energy by making cogent arguments for your ideas. Save the protest for if real, unjust censorship ever happens.
I don't know what it is, or even if indeed there is one; but I am hoping to find out.
Remember, the Mods are volunteer, unpaid, and have lives to lead apart from moderating. How much time do you suppose they have to pursue obscure agendas?
Over the last x number of years, I've been active on the old PF and the new PF, with some of the same people moderating. I haven't seen evidence of moderators pursuing private agendas. Of course, I don't know what all they do behind the scenes. Maybe it's all smoke and mirrors.
I don't know why they pull one post and not another. I would be much more worried if they started killing off threads, wholesale. I have never seen a thread deleted except for being a product sales pitch or a bald "you can only be saved by the Blood of the Lamb" thread. (There's a clear, unambiguous difference between discussing whether you think people can be saved or not, and from what, and making specific religious demands of forum participants.)
You, and others, have strongly reacted to having posts deleted. I would be a bit upset too, but I wouldn't worry unless you see a clear pattern of depravity on the part of moderators toward your posts.
[hide]
#SecretAgendaRevealed
It is a forum, not an academic journal with qualified experts judging written content, just everyday people who are interested in chatting to one another about things that may be philosophically related. Threads that contain any merit rarely attract well-deserved responses and so the only enjoyment we have left is to confuse the regulars with a bit of controversy as they try to figure you out - is she religious? Is she racist? - hence the fun bit. It is impossible to see beneath the façade of anyone because the way that we write can easily be misinterpreted; in reality, I lead a quiet and gentle life, work with children and love my dog but I could appear to many outsiders as a raging amazonian genius who screams and eats whole cooked chickens while slushing down a pot of ale.
Like those people who audition for a singing competition but they sound like a dying horse need to be told that they won't get far in life as a singer, sometimes there are people who have a rather awkward intellect that need to be told that perhaps they should try dabbling in something less intellectually vigorous, like new age spirituality. It may just be that you unfortunately got caught in between, brush your shoulders off and move on.
And you do >:O
You remind me of...
I have no clue who that guy is ;) You can tell I never watch TV.
I'm part of those who appear on TV, not those who watch it (jk lol)
I'm not against removing posts, but I think it's important that the poster be made aware of the deletion (and why, if applicable). (Knowing why your post is removed would be good for rehabilitating the shit posters.)
There's a concept called "shadow-banning" which is where you make someone's content invisible to everyone but themselves, and sometimes they go on posting for years, never ever getting any replies. The problem I have with shadow-bans (or by partial similarity, shadow-post deletion) is that it can have the insidious effect of censoring/silencing political speech above and beyond merely denying someone a platform. Banning someone outright is one thing, but shadow-banning prevents people from finding other platforms because they are tricked into thinking they already have one.
It's an interesting ethical issue given the unprecedented importance these new digital forums (the big ones especially) have in society.
I didn't say otherwise, and if I'm wrong, then it's odd that many of your comments attest to the fact. In fact, it's hard to think of a time when you [i]haven't[/I] piped up in this way. I've gotten used to it and have come to expect it.
Because it was melodramatic... an overreaction.
Eye roll.
Right, and this isn't melodramatic?
No, there's no notification. If there was an option for automatic notification, then we'd consider doing that, but we don't have that option.
No.
Posts aren't moderated on the basis of political leaning. If they were, I'd delete all of BC's posts. The reason I don't is because he has something intelligent to say. And that answers the OP as to what criteria the mods use.
No, of course not. That in itself is not a problem, and it wasn't the problem in this case. The problem related to the content.
Maybe it's rare enough the mods could just have a policy of sending the deletee a PM.
OTOH, that would probably invite debate, and a further policy like "We won't respond to PMs about post deletion" has an icky ring to it.
Erk.
Well there you have it. A subjective opinion posturing as objectivity.
We've considered that option and have already discussed it in the moderator forum. I'm against that because I think it's too much work. You'll either notice that you've been moderated or you won't, and if you have any questions or complaints, then you can contact us or create a discussion in the feedback forum. We do sometimes message members, but usually not just as a notification.
That is an odd thing to hope for.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
He wants to make sure that he appears as a match for:
Quoting TimeLine
(L)
>:O >:O >:O
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Oh dear Heister... you should watch out man, you don't want to end up mashed potato do you? >:O