A new home for TPF

Nice. Thanks for the heads up, and the forward planning. Very much appreciated.

Quoting Jamal

For legal compliance and technical reasons, we will not be migrating the content from this site (the current one). Instead, we will start fresh, and the current site will become a permanent, read-only archive, which I will host myself.

Understood. I appreciate that you will keep the site as a read-only archive. There are many memories here, and it would be a pity to lose them forever.

Quoting Jamal

We will be using Discourse

I guess we have to wait until you set up the new TPF to create our profiles in this new software, right?

Quoting Jamal

This upgrade represents a substantial investment in the forum's future. Running costs will be $100/month for Discourse hosting, in addition to the costs of setting up and running a company. Because of this, we'll need more subscribers to keep things going.

I'm in. I hereby agree to the costs, investment and other features to keep things going.

Quoting Jamal

Stay tuned for further updates.

:up:

Quoting Outlander

I wonder what some folk are going to think about having their post count reset to 0. Will that happen? How "fresh" will the new start be? Don't want to clutter up the public thread with my idiosyncratic bouts of curiosity.

Will we have to sign up again as if joining a new site? Or will we just load up TPF one March day and be on an empty new forum? Will new membership admittance be the same as it is now (ie. no temporary "open enroll" to get the initial numbers up, etc.)?

Existing members will have to sign up to join the new site. This is essential for legal compliance, because this is where you will agree to the new Acceptable Use Policy.

So far I don't have a definite plan for how to get existing members over to the new site. Probably I'll make a list of members who have been active over the past year or so, and send an email. Otherwise, there will probably be a permanent announcement on the archive site.

And yes, I think we should probably open up the new site, to allow anyone to sign up, though with admin approval to activate accounts.

Quoting javi2541997

Understood. I appreciate that you will keep the site as a read-only archive. There are many memories here, and it would be a pity to lose them forever.

Indeed :up:

Quoting javi2541997

I guess we have to wait until you set up the new TPF to create our profiles in this new software, right?

Well, I've made progress in setting it up already, but unfortunately I can't open it up until everything is sorted out legally, I have a business bank account connected to the subscription system, and stuff like that.

Quoting javi2541997

I'm in. I hereby agree to the costs, investment and other features to keep things going.

Thank you for the support Javi. :up:

Quoting Outlander

I wonder what some folk are going to think about having their post count reset to 0

If I am not mistaken, I believe Discourse doesn't count the contribution of each member with the post number. However, everything will depend on how it is set up, I guess.

Reply to javi2541997

The number of posts will be visible on the user's profile, but not within discussions.

Incidentally, aside from the number of posts we will have other things like badges, trust levels, and upvotes, though I'm not sure how we'll use them yet.

Quoting Jamal

Existing members will have to sign up to join the new site [...] there will probably be a permanent announcement on the archive site.

Does this mean there will be an entirely new domain name as well? Or something like a https://thephilosophyforum.com/archive link that will point to the soon-to-be-archived forum we're on now?

This is a good domain name. A private browser window Google search for "online philosophy forum" shows TPF as #1 result for me. 10+ years of search relevance is worth keeping /utilizing as the access point for the new forum, if you ask me.

Reply to Outlander

I want the sites to be separate so I'll transfer thephilosophyforum.com to the new site and use something else for the archive.

Quoting Jamal

Incidentally, aside from the number of posts we will have other things like badges, trust levels, and upvotes, though I'm not sure how we'll use them yet.

Interesting!

Quoting Jamal

...upvotes...

@180 Proof will be very happy!

Reply to javi2541997, Reply to Outlander The Oldies have been there before - My count was over twenty thousand in the previous incarnation.

Reply to Banno

True. You were also in the old PF, so the transmigration is not something new to you, Banno. :wink:

Quoting javi2541997

...transmigration...

Metempsychosis?

Quoting Banno

Metempsychosis?

Yeah.

Quoting Outlander

You're probably right. But even what's his name likes the idea of a "community posting room", likely for the reasons I've suggested.

I don't get it. How could a live chat not function as a "community posting room"? Granted, I don't really know what it means.

Quoting Jamal

The Shoutbox used to be live chat and we had to make it a regular discussion thread when we moved to Plush only because Plush has no live chat feature.

et @Outlander Reply to Outlander

It is a great discovery to know how the shoutbox was born. :up:

I think it is one of the most relevant threads, and that most of us are fond of it because this is where we grow our online friendship. I understand Outlander's concerns, but we have to trust Jamal, and if he states that the shoutbox will still be the same but with a live chat function, then that is what will truly happen. However, if for different reasons, we are not satisfied, we can always ask Jamal to set it up in a different manner until it fits our preferences. I think we will have to be patient. The first months will be about getting used to the new platform. Yet it is very important to admit that some things will indeed be different because we are moving from PlushForums to another software. Like when we move to another neighbourhood.

Keep in mind one important thing—we are actually the ones who make the things. Whether the next version of the shoutbox is funny and entertaining is dependent on us, nothing else.

Reply to javi2541997 :up:

The Shoutbox won't be the same, but in my opinion it won't be worse. It never really belonged among the discussions, and this has caused problems.

Here are some screenshots of the Shoutbox, one expanded and one floating in the bottom right corner.





As you can see, it's pretty lonely there at the moment.

Quoting Jamal

Here are some screenshots of the Shoutbox, one expanded and one floating in the bottom right corner.

OK – it will have a different aspect, but I do not see any problem at all. It seems we will be able to interact as we used to do, and the dark mode is very refreshing. The current light mode strains my eyes when I use it at night.

Perhaps—another different feature I am thinking of—each thread would not be ordered with pages, as in PlushForums, but just a single page where all the comments and replies are posted. Then, if I wanted to reread a response from you, I would have to scroll until I found it; not go to page 261 as we do here.

Quoting Jamal

As you can see, it's pretty lonely there at the moment.

There are three Jamals. That's enough. :grin:

Quoting javi2541997

There are three Jamals. That's enough.

Yeah :grin:

Quoting javi2541997

Perhaps—another different feature I am thinking of—each thread would not be ordered with pages, as in PlushForums, but just a single page where all the comments and replies are posted. Then, if I wanted to reread a response from you, I would have to scroll until I found it; not go to page 261 as we do here.

Yep, no paging, either in chat or in regular discussions. But there are other ways of navigating within a discussion, and you can easily search within it too (for chat as well):

Quoting Jamal

Yep, no paging, either in chat or in regular discussions. But there are other ways of navigating within a discussion, and you can easily search within it too (for chat as well):

Cool! :cool:

Quoting Jamal

How could a live chat not function as a "community posting room"?

First and foremost, it's not that big a deal. Though I feel impassioned enough to make this reply, as I do think, as someone who is not advanced, that is to say, not intimately acquainted with the ins and outs of higher philosophy, the Shoutbox is a joy to visit, peruse, and respond to. Probably an easy second favorite part of my experience with this website, behind reading threads, of course.

In my experience a traditional Shoutbox or "live chat" is generally at the very top of the forum index (though this can—usually—be altered and even "collapsed" or outright hidden per user preference) and is roughly 5 - 10 lines of text "tall". Though it can be scrolled up. This discourages all but simple pleasantries and spontaneous "what's everybody up to" or perhaps the occasional "thoughts on today's topic of XYZ?", which is wholly sufficient, sure..

But what about @jorndoe's ever popular news updates? These take up a good amount of screen real estate in the context of a live chat that encourages more spontaneity thus encourages more "fun" or "social" or otherwise "unsubstantial" replies.

As it is now, sometimes the Shoutbox takes a few days to reach a new page (10 replies), sometimes it creates more than one page in 15 minutes. From my experience live chat permanently truncates a certain number of older replies based on however many new replies are made. It's nice to be able to go back and see what was said a day or two ago.

Again, it's not that big a deal. Just my 2 cents on the matter. Which a mod did agree with as far as making something of the sort, I might add. It seems like a 2 second thing you can make or not make at any time so again try and not read too far into it.

Reply to javi2541997

I actually only just realized that you can search within a discussion here on PlushForums, I mean without going to the Advanced Options page. Doh!

Quoting Outlander

In my experience a traditional Shoutbox or "live chat" is generally at the very top of the forum index (though this can—usually—be altered and even "collapsed" or outright hidden per user preference) and is roughly 5 - 10 lines of text "tall". Though it can be scrolled up. This discourages all but simple pleasantries and spontaneous "what's everybody up to" or perhaps the occasional "thoughts on today's topic of XYZ?", which is wholly sufficient, sure..

See the Reply to Screenshots above. Chatrooms can be expanded to fill the main page panel.

Quoting Outlander

As it is now, sometimes the Shoutbox takes a few days to reach a new page (10 replies), sometimes it creates more than one page in 15 minutes. From my experience live chat permanently truncates a certain number of older replies based on however many new replies are made. It's nice to be able to go back and see what was said a day or two ago.

We can configure this. Right now I've got it saving the chat messages forever.

Quoting Banno

...upvotes...
— Jamal
@180 Proof will be very happy!

:up:

Congratulations on the move, Reply to Jamal. :up:

Out of curiosity, why did you opt out of your former idea of going with Communiteq hosting?

---

Also, Reply to regarding "form and content in philosophy," I would suggest "zen mode reading" (and not just composing), where one can devote their entire screen to the topic at hand (example). Although I think Discourse allows this modification on a user level by default...?

Quoting Jamal

User Control: Mute other users by adding them to your "Ignore" list.

This is good timing given the way that Chrome Manifest V3 has killed Reply to SophistiCat's extension (which is nevertheless still temporarily available in Brave, Edge, Vivaldi, and probably some others).

Quoting Jamal

All of that can be done in live chat, unless I'm missing something. I'm not saying no—just trying to establish what people think the live chat will be lacking. Because quite often I think it'll turn out that live chat isn't lacking it aftet all.

The Shoutbox used to be live chat and we had to make it a regular discussion thread when we moved to Plush only because Plush has no live chat feature.

I want to say it will be better, and will more properly distinguish the chat from the forum.

It's also worth noting that once web pages and forums became asynchronous the distinction between live vs. non-live chat was largely superseded. Older forum software which was not asynchronous (and required a page re-load after submitting a post or PM) is now gone. It was that page load that made it feel "non-live." Of course, that model was nice insofar as it felt more "long form" (like sending a letter), but the current Shoutbox is this weird amalgam between short-form and long-form media. An instant message style UI would simply be better for the TPF Shoutbox (although the non-paginated Discourse format is already more "live" than a paginated format). It would also help discourage short-form bleed into the main forum.

Relatedly, I would propose time limits on editing. The perpetual editing of TPF leads to careless composition, in my opinion.

---

Quoting Jamal

I actually only just realized that you can search within a discussion here on PlushForums, I mean without going to the Advanced Options page. Doh!

You can, but the search is wonky. It isn't thread-indexed, but rather functions via a search on common words in the thread title. So it will return results for any thread with similar titles. There are other problems too, such as the fact that threads containing special characters are unsearchable, and users with special name formats are not present in the mentions dropdown.

Reply to Jamal Change is the only constant.

Thank you for all of your time and talent that you have generously given to the current (and future) ThePhilosophyForum.

That sound absolutely fantastic, across pretty much all changes noted. AWesome.

Reply to BC I expect you in the new home of TPF with no excuses. Don't leave me (us), BC.

It sounds like there is not anything our current software can do that the new software cannot do. If that's correct, then we can not only fully replicate what we had, but we can also add to it.

I say this in response to @Outlander, who is concerned that the Shoutbox as we know it will necessarily disappear with the introduction of a live chatbox. I would think (or suggest) that if there were a desire to start a thread that was lounge-like and not chat-like, that could be done?

If the two turned out the same, there'd be no need for both, but if there were an important difference, maybe have both, but that to be determined as we go along.

Reply to Jamal Great work Jamal. Super impressed with your commitment to the Forum. I'll help with subscriptions when the new platform goes live.

Thank you, Jamal and team, for keeping the place alive. I particularly appreciate the preservation of the archives because there is so much good stuff there.

During the transition, is keeping the email info current critical to rolling over to a new account? I have just have been relying on messages once signed in to communicate.

Quoting Leontiskos

Out of curiosity, why did you opt out of your former idea of going with Communiteq hosting?

Fair question.

I'm sure Communiteq is good but I think we're better off long-term with Discourse.org. My strategy is to go with the official premium product and see if we can afford it—we can always move to Communiteq or self-hosted later on if it proves to be too much. But I don't see why we couldn't cover $100/month. We've just been too relaxed about subscriptions—if we'd made a bigger deal about it I'm sure we could have got more members to subscribe.

This is a serious website and we want it to keep going for a long time. It deserves the real thing, not just a cheaper third party alternative. I realize this might seem shallow or impressionistic but I think it's significant nonetheless. Discourse.org seems like the professional option.

On Discourse.org we're dealing with the people who develop the software. They know what they are doing. Updates and plugin compatibility and what-have-you are handled by those who know the code most intimately. Support is fast and definitive, and the service is extrememely reliable.

It also has better performance due to differences in their server infrastructure, apparently.

Incidentally, I tried NodeBB for a couple of weeks and XenForo for a couple of days, and some other more Enterprisey things like circle.so. I was almost ready to go with NodeBB but then I tried Discourse again and the experience was substantially better than NodeBB.

Quoting Leontiskos

Also, ?regarding
"form and content in philosophy," I would suggest "zen mode reading" (and not just composing), where one can devote their entire screen to the topic at hand (example). Although I think Discourse allows this modification on a user level by default...?

I can't see this functionality anywhere but I just tried the Firefox reader-view and it worked fine, so I presume other browsers can achieve the same thing. Anyway look:



When the sidebar is collapsed it's pretty distraction-free, no?

Quoting Leontiskos

It's also worth noting that once web pages and forums became asynchronous the distinction between live vs. non-live chat was largely superseded. Older forum software which was not asynchronous (and required a page re-load after submitting a post or PM) is now gone. It was that page load that made it feel "non-live." Of course, that model was nice insofar as it felt more "long form" (like sending a letter), but the current Shoutbox is this weird amalgam between short-form and long-form media. An instant message style UI would simply be better for the TPF Shoutbox (although the non-paginated Discourse format is already more "live" than a paginated format). It would also help discourage short-form bleed into the main forum.

Yes, good points. The difference is partly in how the functionality is presented: in the long-form discussion, the big serious composer window is obviously for long posts, whereas it's just a small bare-bones textbox in live chat. Also we can implement minimum post length in the discussions.

Quoting Leontiskos

Relatedly, I would propose time limits on editing. The perpetual editing of TPF leads to careless composition, in my opinion.

Yes, I'll be looking into that. I might make it subsciber-based. I'm pretty sure it can be implemented in Discourse anyway.

Quoting Leontiskos

You can, but the search is wonky. It isn't thread-indexed, but rather functions via a search on common words in the thread title. So it will return results for any thread with similar titles. There are other problems too, such as the fact that threads containing special characters are unsearchable, and users with special name formats are not present in the mentions dropdown.

Yeah, the search here is seriously defective.

Reply to Wayfarer Reply to Paine Reply to BC Reply to AmadeusD

:cool: :up:

Quoting Paine

During the transition, is keeping the email info current critical to rolling over to a new account? I have just have been relying on messages once signed in to communicate.

You can use a new email address at the new site, and you can change your email address here as well if you like.

Quoting javi2541997

Don't leave me

Fear not. I will pretty much be with you till death do us part. Or, until something else happens, like bankruptcy and homelessness, having both hands cut off by Islamic extremists, or being run over by a gang of electric tricycle-riding senior citizens, putting me in a coma.

Quoting Hanover

It sounds like there is not anything our current software can do that the new software cannot do. If that's correct, then we can not only fully replicate what we had, but we can also add to it.

I say this in response to Outlander, who is concerned that the Shoutbox as we know it will necessarily disappear with the introduction of a live chatbox. I would think (or suggest) that if there were a desire to start a thread that was lounge-like and not chat-like, that could be done?

If the two turned out the same, there'd be no need for both, but if there were an important difference, maybe have both, but that to be determined as we go along.

Well, I'm planning on having a Lounge at the new place too, although I want it to be different:



NOTE: This is not final. It's also a bit confusing because it says "chat," and there's already live chat for that.

Otherwise, I'd like to know precisely what "lounge-like and not chat-like" means. For example, some people might not like chat because the textbox is so small: they might want a large box to compose a wee story with multiple paragraphs. They might be unaware that you can do paragraphs in chat using shift+return. In Discourse the textbox gets bigger when you do that. It never gets as big as the composer in the long-form discussions, but big enough for most Shoutbox posts, I would think.

Anyway, the community will decide. If a long-form discussion in the Lounge turns into an effective Shoutbox I might consider letting that continue. But I'm heavily into turning the Shoutbox into a chatroom so I'll resist such developments.

Quoting BC

Fear not. I will pretty much be with you till death do us part. Or, until something else happens,

I didn't expect otherwise, dear friend. We are going to talk a lot about Spain's mussels in the next home/chapter of TPF. I promise!

Quoting Jamal

Incidentally, I tried NodeBB for a couple of weeks and XenForo for a couple of days, and some other more Enterprisey things like circle.so . I was almost ready to go with NodeBB but then I tried Discourse again and the experience was substantially better than NodeBB.

Opera browser has a forum and it is set up on NodeBB. I had a look at it because I wanted to solve some doubts. I'm glad you chose Discourse because NodeBB is a bit [s]plain[/s] dull.

Reply to javi2541997

Yes, I had a look at that when I was researching NodeBB. To be fair—and because I'm reflexively argumentative—dull isn't necessarily bad for a forum, and NodeBB can be customized extensively. What matters more to me is how smoothly everything works. Discourse in my opinion just runs better, always looks nicer due to better all-round design and compatibility of themes and colour schemes, and setup is less of a struggle.

Quoting Jamal

To be fair—and because I'm reflexively argumentative—dull isn't necessarily bad for a forum, What matters more to me is how smoothly everything works

I now understand why phpBB is the main software used for the forums in my country. :razz:

Reply to javi2541997

Even if they're on old-fashioned software I think we should celebrate the continuing existence of independent discussion forums. Not everyone wants to discuss everything on Reddit.

Quoting Jamal

Existing members will have to sign up to join the new site.

Had some problem receiving emails from this site when changing passwords. If the move over to the new site requires an email invite for the current account, what happens if it fails?

Wouldn't there be an email list for all current members? So that taking that list into approved members for the new site will work and when signing up the email is already registered on an approved list there.

Meaning, using the email you registered on this site will let you into the door of the new site when registering.

And if there are any trouble, the new site should have a way to contact moderators if there are any trouble transferring over.

Also, what happens to stuff hidden on this site from people not logged in? Like the short stories? If there's stuff like that disappearing from view, maybe that should be moved over to the new site?

Quoting Christoffer

Had some problem receiving emails from this site when changing passwords. If the move over to the new site requires an email invite for the current account, what happens if it fails?

It won't be invitation-only and you'll be able to just go to the site and sign up yourself. I'll be making an announcement when it's open for new sign-ups. As I say, around March.

Quoting Christoffer

Wouldn't there be an email list for all current members? So that taking that list into approved members for the new site will work and when signing up the email is already registered on an approved list there.

Meaning, using the email you registered on this site will let you into the door of the new site when registering.

It's essential that all users of the new site have read and explicitly agreed to the new Acceptable Use Policy. New users confirm that when they sign up. So there won't be any pre-approved accounts.

Quoting Christoffer

Also, what happens to stuff hidden on this site from people not logged in? Like the short stories? If there's stuff like that disappearing from view, maybe that should be moved over to the new site?

Since I have to write some code that turns the existing site into a static site (based on the data export), I can make everything visible (obviously not private messages).

EDIT: Actually you'll need to verify your email when you sign up. If emails from [email protected] are not reaching you, that will be an issue.

Quoting Jamal

Even if they're on old-fashioned software I think we should celebrate the continuing existence of independent discussion forums. Not everyone wants to discuss everything on Reddit.

Absolutely--I dislike Reddit, by the way.

Quoting Jamal

Otherwise, I'd like to know precisely what "lounge-like and not chat-like" means.

I really don't know yet, so I think we probably just have to let things develop and see. I guess what I think of when I think of a chatbox is an ongoing text group conversation, where the comments are brief and move back and forth quickly. That does describe the Shoutbox as it currently exists, although the comments can become longer and more involved, sometimes being used as a place to test out discussions as opposed to starting a thread. It's the longer conversations I wonder if will get lost under a chatbox feature. But, as you're describing the chatbox, it sounds like it might not have the limitations I've brought up.

The role of the Shoutbox has been discussed in the past (as in putting it on the main page versus relegating it to the Lounge where it had to be searched out), with some seeing it as an important feature to build and maintain community and others maybe seeing it as too much a diversion from real philosophy. I fall obviously into the former group, and so as long as the new site maintains that, it's really not that important how it looks and feels.

I also know that nothing is ever set in stone and that if something isn't working we can always discuss it later and figure it out. The Shoutbox as it currently exists was actually a work around after we lost the chatbox feature available under the old software. Click on the Shoutbox and go to the first page and you'll see a discussion of how we were trying to create what we lost.

I also thought the layout from the old site was better in certain ways (although it had countless bugs and unreliability problems) because it showed the categories and the posts by recency by each category and not just everything at once. What happens under our current system is that if 10 people come up with new religion posts (for example), the main board is overwhelmed with that and it looks like that's the ony thing being discussed. If posts are divided by category, that doesn't happen because you can just not pay attention to those categories you're not interested in. I don't know if the new software addresses that or not though.

Quoting Hanover

I also thought the layout from the old site was better in certain ways (although it had countless bugs and unreliability problems) because it showed the categories and the posts by recency by each category and not just everything at once. What happens under our current system is that if 10 people come up with new religion posts (for example), the main board is overwhelmed with that and it looks like that's the ony thing being discussed. If posts are divided by category, that doesn't happen because you can just not pay attention to those categories you're not interested in. I don't know if the new software addresses that or not though.

I've made the home page of the new site show topics from all categories ordered by most recent, just like here. But unlike here, if you go to the "All categories" page the categories are ordered by most recent—so that page would fit what you'd like to see as the home page (Philosophy of Religion would show at the top but wouldn't overwhelm the page). Personally I wouldn't want that as the home page. Maybe I'll do a poll.

On the old site I always went to /latest or whatever it was, which was the same as our home page here.

Anyway in Discourse it's all configurable.

Reply to Jamal

I like how it's implemented here. There are topics that don't interest me and are an eyesore, but I go into them and learn something new or interesting. That's great for me.

On the other hand, could you tell me if there will be a way to fine-tune the settings to hide topics I don't want to see (in case I want to create an echo chamber and not know what people think about certain things?)

I also wanted to suggest, if appropriate, adding more sections—for example, metaepistemology or axiology—so that I could narrow my choices a bit more.

Quoting Astorre

On the other hand, could you tell me if there will be a way to fine-tune the settings to hide topics I don't want to see (in case I want to create an echo chamber and not know what people think about certain things?)

Yes, on the new platform you'll be able to mute topics and whole categories, so that they don't appear on the /latest page.

Quoting Astorre

I also wanted to suggest, if appropriate, adding more sections—for example, metaepistemology or axiology—so that I could narrow my choices a bit more

We can always make subcategories but I don't think those ones would be used enough to merit that.

Quoting Hanover

what I think of when I think of a chatbox is an ongoing text group conversation, where the comments are brief and move back and forth quickly. That does describe the Shoutbox as it currently exists, although the comments can become longer and more involved, sometimes being used as a place to test out discussions as opposed to starting a thread. It's the longer conversations I wonder if will get lost under a chatbox feature.

:100: :up:

Quoting Hanover

I also thought the layout from the old site was better in certain ways (although it had countless bugs and unreliability problems) because it showed the categories and the posts by recency by each category and not just everything at once.

It definitely varies per individual, but generally speaking I'm fairly certain the majority of people prefer a (at least default) "dump" of ALL topics sorted by most recent activity. It just makes the place look more active and exciting (ie. not "dead"). Further customization on what topics are displayed or not displayed once a user signs up handles every possible concern IMO.

Quoting Jamal

I'm sure Communiteq is good but I think we're better off long-term with Discourse.org . My strategy is to go with the official premium product and see if we can afford it—we can always move to Communiteq or self-hosted later on if it proves to be too much.

That's fair, and I think Discourse databases are extremely portable, so switching around should be easy if it comes down to that.

I have heard that Discourse is harder to self-host than some of the other options such as NodeBB, so a managed option seems preferable. But I will say that I was impressed with the Communiteq managed option, and was not aware of it before you suggested it. Although they do not have the same bona fides as the official Discourse host, they do specialize in Discourse and host that software exclusively. So as you say, it would be a good fallback.

Quoting Jamal

But I don't see why we couldn't cover $100/month. We've just been too relaxed about subscriptions—if we'd made a bigger deal about it I'm sure we could have got more members to subscribe.

And I'm sure Discourse offers more flexible subscription tiers than Plush.

Quoting Jamal

Incidentally, I tried NodeBB for a couple of weeks and XenForo for a couple of days, and some other more Enterprisey things like circle.so . I was almost ready to go with NodeBB but then I tried Discourse again and the experience was substantially better than NodeBB.

Yeah, I think that's right. NodeBB is more niche and requires more setup and attention.

Quoting Jamal

When the sidebar is collapsed it's pretty distraction-free, no?

Yes, I think so. That ability to collapse the sidebar is what I was thinking of. :up:

Quoting Jamal

Yes, good points. The difference is partly in how the functionality is presented: in the long-form discussion, the big serious composer window is obviously for long posts, whereas it's just a small bare-bones textbox in live chat. Also we can implement minimum post length in the discussions.

:up:

Obviously I like incentivizing more serious long form discussions, but my opinions on that topic are already well-known. :grin:

Maybe we could trial downvotes? They have a harsh side where immature people downvote to signal disagreement, but they can also be an effective means of community self moderation.

Quoting frank

Maybe we could trial downvotes? They have a harsh side where immature people downvote to signal disagreement, but they can also be an effective means of community self moderation.

Seems rather needless, perhaps even detrimental to exploration of free thought and differing view points. If you have a valid and logical disagreement, you simply make it known like an adult instead of attempting to obscure one's—essentially baseless—personal sentiments as if they were anything but exactly that.

I wouldn't mind. So long as they don't actually do or mean anything. Otherwise all this will result in is not community self moderation but censorship against views that are perfectly valid yet not aligned to one's own—not even views—but ingrained dogma masquerading as views.

Provided someone isn't literally just making things up that cannot be substantiated, one should have the respect to give any posit or position one doesn't either agree with or understand a proper response to reveal one's own understanding (or as it is many a time, misunderstanding) of the author's sentiment so that their own sentiment can be revealed and scrutinized in return. We wouldn't allow a perfectly valid albeit controversial claim to be replied to with "Yeah, well, I don't like that idea", as if it contributes anything to logic or reason and human understanding—which it doesn't. So why allow it in the form of trivial, faceless "down votes" devoid of any reason or explanation? :chin:

Quoting Outlander

So why allow it in the form of trivial, faceless "down votes" devoid of any reason or explanation?

It works. I have a couple of subreddits which I've never had to moderate. Downvotes do all the work.

Quoting frank

It works. I have a couple of subreddits which I've never had to moderate. Downvotes do all the work.

And this is a further point! Perception bias toward popularity. "If it's popular, it's right and should be paid attention to, if not, it's a waste of time." Also known as "judging a book by its cover"-ism. The greatest crime against human thought. I'm not immune. If I see a post from a staff member (at first I thought I was just a victim to authority bias, until I thought about it and realized, no, I genuinely recognize the elevated intellect of those who just so happen to be authority figures here, and that's perfectly okay) I pay it extra attention, and I've noticed generally tend to agree with it, or at least consider what specific viewpoints I hold that would differ as perhaps less refined than I would have otherwise. This is only natural for social beings. Yet it can be dangerous if it leads to a feedback loop of confirmation bias (ie. this is a forum of smart people, therefore, what is disliked is stupid, and what is liked is smart). That's fine for Reddit, for the majority, but with all due respect, this is not now nor hopefully will ever be anything like Reddit. Simply put, if the "norm" and "what's popular" in life and society was sufficient for those here, they wouldn't be here. They wouldn't seek greater. But we do. That's why we're here. We're not satisfied with the cookie-cutter norms and standards of everyday life that the layperson eats up as if it were ambrosia. Am I wrong?

Quoting frank

Maybe we could trial downvotes? They have a harsh side where immature people downvote to signal disagreement, but they can also be an effective means of community self moderation.

Agreed.

When I was thinking of making a forum I wanted to have it so that each user gets X points per day, and points can only be spent on upvotes and downvotes - votes which have no further, instrumental use. An upvote would cost one point and a downvote would cost three points. So if you get four points per day you decide how to use them, but downvotes would cost much more. The scarcity of points was meant to make the votes more meaningful. Long-time users would have more points per day than newbies, etc.

I think downvotes would be useful, especially if they could be disincentivized in a way like this. I actually think many of the interpersonal problems that come up on TPF occur because there is no communal outlet to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a post.

(With that said, Reddit is a bit different in that it engages in automatic soft-censoring against strongly downvoted posts. If that is allowed, I think it should be left to the user, and should not be automatic.)

Quoting Outlander

We wouldn't allow a perfectly valid albeit controversial claim to be replied to with "Yeah, well, I don't like that idea", as if it contributes anything to logic or reason and human understanding—which it doesn't. So why allow it in the form of trivial, faceless "down votes" devoid of any reason or explanation? :chin:

Ideally a downvote signifies poor quality, not dislike. Non-verbal interactions and communal consensus have existed for all of human history. Upvotes and downvotes are just a way to introduce such things online.

Reply to Outlander
I agree that there's a good side and bad side to downvotes. It's helpful for identifying trolls.

Quoting frank

It's helpful for identifying trolls.

Which isn't relevant in enlightened communities such as TPF. They don't exist here. It's either too "boring", niche, and "slow", among other things, the main thing being the "customer base" (ie. intelligent people don't contribute to the feedback loop that people looking to provoke negative reactions online look for. There's nothing for people like that here. This would be akin to setting up a bear trap in the suburbs. There's just no legitimate use or reason to.)

This is where your "normal operating standards" (that are very useful in, again, normal places) don't have a place in intellectual spaces that explore free thought. All it would do is determine unpopular viewpoints, and give false credence that something unpopular is inherently bad. Judging a book by it's cover. I doubt anybody here who's a significant contributor would choose to read or ignore a post based on "likes" or "dislikes". And I would hope the vain pettiness that many people feel in "disliking" a view instead of logically refuting it (often due to lack of ability to) is non-existent for the majority of posters here.

Though I'm disinclined to (biased against) "likes" and dislikes" (it just seems like it's everywhere and taking over everything online), I can understand upvotes. Some people like to reply to a post they agree with with things like " :up: " or " :fire: ", which doesn't bother me. It's a message board at the end of the day, after all. But if staff wanted to cut down on simple posts that work out to "I agree" or "I disagree (but can't or won't explain why)" and view likes/dislikes as a better option than that's all there is to it I guess.

Reply to Jamal Thanks Jamal, the projected new forum sounds great. Is there any way of exporting one's posts from the old forum as a word file?

Reply to Janus
Without having the site do that, it is easily done by copy/pasting from the comment collection under one's name.

I did a little of that but not into the thousands.

It would be cool if we could transfer all that as a single file. I get the impression that those writers who are most concerned about that sort of thing are posting here from copies of their own files.

Thanks. Copy/ pasting form the comments is a tedious process. I've often thought I should write my responses in a single word document and then copy/paste to the site, but I just never seem to get around to doing that. I'm not all that concerned about it, I guess, otherwise I would have been doing that all along.

Reply to Janus Reply to Paine

The new site will have an export feature built in. I'd be surprised if it is possible here.

[s]Another way to do it here would be to search for all of your posts...[/s] Nevermind. The search caps out at 1,000 posts.

Quoting Paine

Without having the site do that, it is easily done by copy/pasting from the comment collection under one's name.

I think this might be the only way. Note the url parameter at the end of the url, "https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/11883/paine/40". That number indexes the posts. So if the parameter is 40 then it is showing you your most recent 40 to 79 posts (i.e. X to X+39). You can manipulate that parameter to access older posts, or to begin where you left off copy/pasting.

You could also use my tip <here> to ditch the side column and use ctrl-a to save time.

Quoting Janus

I'm not all that concerned about it, I guess, otherwise I would have been doing that all along.

I have used some stuff elsewhere but mostly considered writing here as a one-shot deal. Remembering the past for me has been about recalling discussions in OPs. Anything i said was in the context of other statements. There is a Groundhog Day movie quality to much of that.

Reply to Leontiskos

Interesting points on how to search the site. Since the old site will be preserved, I wonder if the "advanced search" functions that work now will work there. There are words that get to the beginning of the site, long before I showed up.

Quoting Janus

Thanks Jamal, the projected new forum sounds great. Is there any way of exporting one's posts from the old forum as a word file?

I'll have all the data and I'll be able to provide members with a posts export on request. In fact I might provide it at the archive site.

Quoting Paine

There is a Groundhog Day movie quality to much of that.

:lol: Indeed there is a Sysyphean element.

Reply to Jamal That would make things easier!

Reply to Leontiskos :up:

Quoting Paine

Since the old site will be preserved, I wonder if the "advanced search" functions that work now will work there

The content will be preserved but it won't look or work like the existing site. It depends how much time I spend on building it. Searching by author or discussion title are easy enough — not sure about a full text search.

Reply to Jamal Will the old data be downloadable and searchable off line? I always thought that would be a cool feature.

Reply to Hanover

The archive will exist as a website, where you will be able to see all the discussions and posts. It will have some kind of search functionality, and it will have a "Your posts" page where you can view and download your posts (or anybody else's: you'll just enter the username). You'll be able to access that download while you're offline, if you keep it on your device (obviously).

If you need to access everything offline, and not just your own posts...well, it's possible for me to provide a package you can run locally, like a private website, but I find myself wondering why you would need to.

Quoting Jamal

but I find myself wondering why you would need to.

Well now, curiosity killed the cat didn't it?

Actually, I could see no need for the entire database. There've just been times when I enter a thread and it's on page 12 or so and I'm Johnny come lately and I'd like to review it, and I hate to say, then maybe I could use AI to summarize where we are so that I could pick up and enter the fray without being repetitive to what's already been said.

So I was more envisioning an individual thread data download feature.

Reply to Hanover

It sounds like you're talking about ongoing discussions, but all the discussions on the archive site will be finished, static, frozen in time. So I'm confused about what you're looking for. You can't "enter the fray" on the archive site.

As it happens I built a first version of the archive site yesterday and the way it works is it shows the full discussion on one page.

The new site doesn't have pagination at all. Every discussion will be infinite scroll. There's an AI "Summarize this topic" button too, but I haven't tried it, and it can be turned off.

Reply to Hanover

As for downloading, you can just do Ctrl+p and then save as PDF. This will work on the new site (you can try it here on another Discourse forum) and also on the archive site.

Quoting Jamal

and it can be turned off.

Please :pray:

Reply to bongo fury

Why is it better for me to turn it off globally than for you to ignore it?

I can think of reasonable answers to that—I just want to understand the opposition.

Quoting bongo fury

Within 10 years, the vast majority of the internet will be AI generated---such is the logic of competitiveness and consumerism. We won't be.
— Baden

I really hope. :grimace:

Sorry to not develop an argument. Casting a vote, though.

Reply to Jamal Reply to Jamal
I am glad that the current pagination will be turned into a single document for the archives. The "Find in page" browser function will make searches one-stop shopping.

I fixed my email so it is current and then noticed that I had turned off notifications sometime in the past. Just mentioning in case others find themselves out of the loop before the transition.

Quoting Paine

I am glad that the current pagination will be turned into a single document for the archives. The "Find in page" browser function will make searches one-stop shopping.

Non-paginated threads are nice insofar as they can be printed to a pdf in a single move, as @Jamal pointed out. Nevertheless, Discourse does not load the entire thread at one time if it is large thread (see <this thread> for an example). So you will still have to use a search for large threads.

Hmmm, I was also there during the old PF days and I still miss it at times. It is like an abandoned café with lights out, chairs on the table and a notice saying it has permanently relocated. I wonder how the TPF originals will feel. In any case, a lot of kudos to Jamal for making this move possible. It is a lot of work you are willing to put in for this place. It is appreciated.

Quoting Jamal

I'll be making an announcement when it's open for new sign-ups. As I say, around March.

I assume this means that the new site will use a new URL for a time? Because if the new site immediately uses https://thephilosophyforum.com then nobody will ever see the announcement on this site because this site will be using a different URL that nobody will know.

I had the temporary URL of the new site showing here for a moment there but I was forgetting that since the legal stuff isn't in place I can't approve any new members yet.

But you can have a look at the archive site, built on a data export from a few days ago.

https://tpfarchive.com

Reply to Jamal Wow! This is fascinating. I typed my username, and every post since I joined here it is perfectly ordered from the newest to the oldest. I can follow my TPF track very easily!

Reply to javi2541997

:up:

It's a little too slow from where I am. Maybe I'll paginate the results on the "your posts" page (you can get them all in a single file in the download).

Quoting Jamal

(you can get them all in a single file in the download).

Yes, yes. I also saw it--very nice!

Quoting Jamal

It's a little too slow from where I am. Maybe I'll paginate the results on the "your posts" page (you can get them all in a single file in the download).

Slow page loading (without pagination) was something I was concerned about. I'm often accessing TPF via a cellphone hot spot with relatively poor cell service, so I appreciate the relatively fast loading of the present site.

Reply to wonderer1

Well I was only talking about the archive site, where it's less critical.

Reply to Jamal

I see. :up:

Reply to wonderer1

The new site should be good too.

Reply to Jamal
Now that you are doing it, it seems no brainer to separate the storage room from the grille.

Reply to Paine

I don't know what you mean.

Reply to Jamal
Pardon my penchant for analogy.

If you work in a restaurant, you try to separate stored goods from actual food production. And the idea is central to other means of production. So, I applied a pedestrian truism to a current situation. Not expecting a Pulitzer prize for that observation.

Quoting Jamal

https://tpfarchive.com

That's an interesting metric of 13,837 discussions. That's a lot of discussions.



Looking at the last page of those discussion results, it seems The Philosophy Forum has been around for just over 10 years, or since October 20th of 2015. That's curious and wonderful the website is a decade old.



I will gladly join the new home for The Philosophy Forum when relocation to Discourse is complete. I've worked with that forum/community platform before and can appreciate the amount of work going into creating a new HQ.

Also, the archive website you built is very powerful and useful. Thank you for all of the work you and the other Admins do regarding this forum and community.

The one thing I'm concerned about transitioning to another platform is that this website will just deteriorate over time without maintenance and the whole archive will be lost, something that's been happening to the rest of the internet with broken sourced hyperlinks everywhere.

Reply to Bret Bernhoft

Thanks Bret!

Quoting Bret Bernhoft

Looking at the last page of those discussion results, it seems The Philosophy Forum has been around for just over 10 years, or since October 20th of 2015. That's curious and wonderful the website is a decade old.

TPF: Curious and wonderful since 2015.

In fact, this site is a kind of continuation of forums.philosophyforums.com, which started probably in the early 2000s but collapsed around the time when this one started.

Quoting Saphsin

The one thing I'm concerned about transitioning to another platform is that this website will just deteriorate over time without maintenance and the whole archive will be lost, something that's been happening to the rest of the internet with broken sourced hyperlinks everywhere.

This website, the one we're on right now, will not deteriorate---it will be completely closed early next year. The content, however, will live on, hosted by me on a static website (tpfarchive.com), which is read-only. I will maintain this indefinitely (though it won't need much maintenance).

If you have a better plan to preserve the archive, let me know. Maybe you want to put up the money to make a physical book?

Some of you might be wondering about redirects. Probably this is the best way:

1. All discussion URLs, i.e., all links to specific discussions/threads/OPs from the old site (this one), will be redirected to the relevant pages of the archive. This means threads which are indexed on Google and linked to from other sites will not leave a trail of broken links behind them. I'm not sure if it's worth doing this for individual comments too.

2. All other URLs pointing to this site, like categories, login, etc., will go to the new site. This will happen by default anyway, since the new site will have the domain.

Quoting Paine

If you work in a restaurant, you try to separate stored goods from actual food production. And the idea is central to other means of production. So, I applied a pedestrian truism to a current situation. Not expecting a Pulitzer prize for that observation.

No no, I'm sure it's brilliant.

Let me see if I understand. The stored goods represent the content of TPF, which we can store independently of its use in ongoing discussion, the latter represented by meal preparation, i.e., "grille"?

Stored food = TPF archived content
The preparation of meals = TPF discussion

I was confused by two things. One, it seemed like you were saying "why don't you do this, it's a no-brainer" (and yet I didn't know what it was you were suggesting); two, I didn't understand "grille," but now I'm thinking you meant the grill as in the place in the kitchen where food is cooked, maybe.

I hope you appreciate the time I've taken over this analogy :wink:

Reply to Jamal I don't know how burdensome it will be, but I do have a lot of bookmarks to specific comments. Anyways thanks for the response.

Reply to Saphsin

If your bookmarks are of URLs such as...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1026204

(the share link for your last comment)

... then I can probably set up redirects to the comment in the archive:

https://tpfarchive.com/discussions/16281-a-new-home-for-tpf.html#comment-1026204

So when you request the former you'll be redirected to the latter, where you should be able to see the comment in context. I'll make a note to set this up.

Note: the latter URL doesn't work right now because the data on the archive site is a few days old.

Quoting Jamal

All discussion URLs, i.e., all links to specific discussions/threads/OPs from the old site (this one), will be redirected to the relevant pages of the archive. This means threads which are indexed on Google and linked to from other sites will not leave a trail of broken links behind them. I'm not sure if it's worth doing this for individual comments too.

Ah, beautiful. Yes I figured the discussion syntax is quite easy to create a redirect for. Looks like a basic static 301.

The comments would be interesting since they do not contain any part of the discussion URL. This would mean having the comment ID fed to a script that pulls up the discussion ID and then redirects the user to the relevant discussion URL prefixed with a hash anchor containing the comment ID. Preferably also sending a 301 Moved Permanently header. Provided you or another staff member created the archive site from scratch (not using a pre-boxed framework or library) your knowledge in such fields seems sufficient enough to do so easily (and most importantly: properly or safely). :smile:

Edit: I notice Plush forum discussion links seem to make use of "friendly URLs" containing the title or a signifcant part of the title in the URL link. Is this done dynamically or is there a data entry alongside the discussion ID containing the final URL fragment (ie. "16281-a-new-home-for-tpf.html")? I suppose it doesn't matter as long as you have all 13,000 final URLs in a list that can be easily indexed and retrieved.

Reply to Outlander

Yeah, I was just thinking about that. The comment URLs on this site don't contain the dicussion IDs, so I can't just use a basic mapping. But I don't want to include an explicit individual redirect for every one of the million or whatever comments.

Quoting Outlander

This would mean having the comment ID fed to a script that pulls up the discussion ID and then redirects the user to the relevant discussion URL prefixed with a hash anchor containing the comment ID.

Yeah, I could probably use Cloudflare workers for that, combined with a key-value store to map the comment IDs to the discussion IDs, which I'll only need to produce once, based on the Plush export.

Quoting Outlander

Preferably also sending a 301 Moved Permanently header. Provided you or another staff member created the archive site from scratch (not using a pre-boxed framework or library) your knowledge in such fields seems sufficient enough to do so easily (and most importantly: properly or safely).

Yep. Well I've already created it, and it doesn't use a framework. It's just HTML, Javascript and JSON, and CSS. The build is done locally by running a python script, written from scratch (I used AI to speed up the process, while I played the role of its micro-managing project manager).

tpfarchive.com

Quoting Jamal

Yeah, I was just thinking about that. The comment URLs on this site don't contain the dicussion IDs, so I can't just use a basic mapping. But I don't want to include an explicit individual redirect for every one of the million or whatever comments.

You may be able to use something like this:

An .htaccess file redirecting comment link sytnax to a web script:
[hide="Reveal"]

RewriteEngine on

RewriteRule ^discussion/comment/([0-9]{7})/?$ jamals-script.php?commentID=$1

[/hide]

A web script (of any language) that attempts to locate a corresponding discussion based on a given comment ID:
[hide="Reveal"]

$commentID = $_GET['commentID'];



if ( preg_match( '{^([0-9]{7})$}', $commentID, $matches ) )

{

    // comment ID is a 7-digit numeric string

    if ( $friendlyURL = searchDatabaseForPostID( $commentID ) )

    {

        // assuming the above function returns the relevant friendly URL segment or FALSE if not found (ie. "1234567-friendly-title-here")

        header( 'https://tpfarchive.com/discussions/' . $friendlyURL . '.html#comment-' . $commentID;

        die;



        // or, simply read and print out the intended target (perhaps add a javascript function to let the page "jump" to the given comment, similar to how Plush operates currently) up to you!

        // $page = file_get_contents( 'https://tpfarchive.com/discussions/' . $friendlyURL . '.html?jumpToComment=' . $commentID );

        // echo $page; // presuming you add a special JS bit when "jumpToComment" URL var is detected, if a user has javascript enabled, the end page shows to the browser as the original comment URL but is actually the contents of the above "file_get_contents" request. this may be desired or to be avoided based on user preference. you can even edit the html post-retrieval and throw in a one line javascript bit in the <header> tag yourself before displaying to the user

        // die;

    }

}



// if we are here either the comment ID was not valid (7 digits) or the comment ID was not found

header( $_SERVER['SERVER_PROTOCOL'] . ' 404 Not Found', true, 404);

include( '404.php' ); // or simple print a 5 line 404 html page

die;



// or, simply redirect to default 404 page

// header( 'https://tpfarchive.com/notfound' );

[/hide]

(untested psuedo-code.. but I am involved in this line of work presently, so I'd be hard pressed to find out it's non-functional..)

Reply to Outlander

Yes, the script I write will achieve the same thing. :up:

I'll be using JavaScript or Python, and I won't have much control over the web server redirects on the new site, so as I say I'll be putting the redirects on Cloudflare, so the requests won't even get to Discourse.

@Jamal thanks for this website and the next :up: :strong:

I don't suppose there's any chance of uploaded images being rehabilitated, on the archive site? E.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/342838

If not, is there a deadline for replacing them with linked ones?

Quoting bongo fury

I don't suppose there's any chance of uploaded images being rehabilitated, on the archive site?

No, any images that survive in the archive will be those hosted externally. Images uploaded to this site will not be in the archive. And I can't restore any of the images I had to remove when we were running out of disk space.

Quoting bongo fury

If not, is there a deadline for replacing them with linked ones?

You could edit your posts and replace the images, including broken ones, with images hosted externally (see the help page on images), and you'll have until we shut down this site to do that. Around February or March.

Reply to Jamal got it :up:

Quoting Jamal

In fact, this site is a kind of continuation of forums.philosophyforums.com, which started probably in the early 2000s but collapsed around the time when this one started.

As I recall, PF was bought by somebody for more than it was worth, but then almost immediately abandoned by its new owner, as if it was for a school project or something. It kept working for a bit, but the new TPF was already up and running when the purchase took place, and everybody just migrated there.

It was painful to watch the archive slowly vanish, and then just die. It was the only place anywhere where Tegmark responded directly to me. Yes, he briefly utilized an account on PF.

Quoting Jamal

But you can have a look at the archive site, built on a data export from a few days ago.

https://tpfarchive.com

Good stuff, Jamal. :up:

Quoting noAxioms

It was the only place anywhere where Tegmark responded directly to me. Yes, he briefly utilized an account on PF.

I understand how you feel. Forums are very important places in our modern era. We meet wonderful here, and we spend a lot of hours. Thanks to different tools, which I can't explain because I am not very expert, our presence here is recorded and kept in a digital book. We go to the past chapters where we interacted with friends, and we experience a sweet feeling of nostalgia.

I completely understand that each of us feared seeing everything fading away. Fortunately, this will not be the case thanks to Jamal's effort and compromise. Otherwise, if we don't keep all TPF's data in an archive, it might mean that we have never been here—when the countless experiences and conversations we all had here are amazing!

Now that I am thinking of this... The TPF archive will be like our Antikythera mechanism.

Quoting Jamal

3. Legal security: To make the forum legally secure and sustainable, in line with new UK online safety laws.

Out of curiosity, I am wondering whether Discourse was the only option able to accommodate the new laws. Were other options also capable?

Quoting noAxioms

As I recall, PF was bought by somebody for more than it was worth, but then almost immediately abandoned by its new owner

That's... one way to look at events. For those who see beyond the mortal eye, who become aware to what the real battles are, it's clear. Free thinkers tend to be.. problematic, shall we say.

Reply to javi2541997 Nice. The Great Transmigration.

Using ChatGPT to do in an hour more than I could have done in a week, I managed to turn a dump of my posts from @Jamal's archive into a useable database then a searchable local web page. Still pretty basic but at least I will have access to this stuff locally. Somewhat satisfying.

But can we do better?

ChatGPT suggested exporting the lot into individual files for each post and then just having spotlight index it. I'm tempted.

Quoting Banno

Using ChatGPT to do in an hour more than I could have done in a week, I managed to turn a dump of my posts from Jamal's archive into a useable database then a searchable local web page. Still pretty basic but at least I will have access to this stuff locally. Somewhat satisfying.

Yeah. Most people can do that too. I have a "dump" of everything I've ever said, thought, or experienced in a usable database I can search and access as well. It's called my brain. :lol:

I kid, of course. Always happy to see a rare casual "personal" post from one of TPF's hardest hitters who makes this site what it is. Always mystifying and enlightening, yet never concealing or pompous. Well, not terribly often, at least. :razz: Post onward, as if the fate of humanity depends on it. It just very well may. :gasp:

Quoting Outlander

Always mystifying and enlightening, yet never concealing or pompous.

I'll try harder.

The question is, how to make best use of the dump? What are other ideas?

Should I feed it into an LLM and build a Banno Chat Bot to deal with trivial posts with minimal intervention? (Don't tell @Baden).

Quoting Banno

The question is, how to make best use of the dump? What are other ideas?

The end is first in the order of intention. Or: someone should know why they want their posts before they ask Jamal for their posts.

The most common purpose would seem to be archival. For that, the text document is itself searchable. If one wants better search functionality they could load it into a database for more complex searches, as you did. Beyond that, I think it's just meant to sit in the attic along with everything else we've hoarded over the years.

Seems unimaginative.

A more imaginative approach would be to stare into the beauty of one's own reflection until they pine away, perhaps with the help of an LLM. :wink:

So I built a bot. Surprisingly easy. And accurate:

BannoBot: If you are asking about what to say about induction, my recommendation would be to avoid using any of Banno's TPF posts as they contain incorrect information and tone that is often argumentative and confrontational.

But lacking consistency:

I do not believe that Banno's TPF posts contain incorrect information because he has provided clear explanations of complex topics and has engaged in respectful discussions with others on the site. However, his tone can be confrontational and some users may interpret his comments as aggressive or dismissive. Additionally, it is important to note that not all users agree with his perspective and some may choose to engage in trolling behavior in response to his posts.

This staring into the beauty of one's own reflection is fun!


As it stands it is only using the top 4 posts. I'll have a play and see if it can do more without being too slow.

Quoting Leontiskos

Out of curiosity, I am wondering whether Discourse was the only option able to accommodate the new laws. Were other options also capable?

I think the alternatives (NodeBB, XenForo, etc) would have enabled us to accommodate the laws. I chose Discourse over and above that requirement because I liked the way it worked.

If you're interested, the main software requirements to accommodate the new laws are more configuration, crucially including the configuration of the sign-up form, and more moderation tools, crucially including the flagging and moderation of direct messages.

Quoting Banno

Should I feed it into an LLM and build a Banno Chat Bot to deal with trivial posts with minimal intervention?

I notice you didn't wait for an answer and just went ahead and did it. So preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop for more than a moment to think if you should (to paraphrase Michael Crichton).

Quoting Banno

As it stands it is only using the top 4 posts. I'll have a play and see if it can do more without being too slow.

So it's reading all your posts before it comes up with an answer each time? I guess the next step is to build your own LLM model that incorporates the words of Banno in its training data.

Quoting Jamal

I notice you didn't wait for an answer and just went ahead and did it. So preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop for more than a moment to think if you should (to paraphrase Michael Crichton).

It's true. The scientist in me got the better of my moral compass.

Quoting Jamal

So it's reading all your posts before it comes up with an answer each time?

No, I built a JSON file and converted it to embeddings, then created a FAISS index from that... this took a while. The question is converted to an embedding vector, then quickly finds the ten (up from 4) most similar posts for the LLM. 384 vectors per post.

Or so I'm told...

The results are slowly improving. Still pretty chunky. Playing with the wording of the prompt has made some improvement,

In my present immoral state, I'll tempt you to do something like this with the entire data file... a master philosophy forum bot...

Happy to share what I've understood of the process.

Quoting Banno

In my present immoral state, I'll tempt you to do something like this with the entire data file... a master philosophy forum bot...

I vaguely recall we were warned about this around 1818. Something to do with an unconventional Swiss scientist.

Reply to Jamal Yes. I rather think my part in this is Igor.

Asked to summarise what it did, ChatGPT said:
[hide="Reveal"]

I helped you turn a complete export of your forum posts into a fully searchable, locally hosted system, culminating in a personal chatbot, BannoBot, capable of answering questions based on your own writing. First, we converted your raw text file into structured JSON, extracting discussions and comments, and ensured it was readable by Python. We then loaded this JSON into an SQLite database, allowing easy querying and verification. To make the content searchable via a web interface, we built a static HTML page that queries the JSON using JavaScript, serving it through a local HTTP server on your Mac, so you could open it in Safari without complex setup.

Next, we preprocessed the posts by generating embeddings. Using the MiniLM-L6-v2 model, each post was converted into a 384-dimensional numerical vector capturing its semantic meaning. These vectors were stored locally as embeddings.npy. To enable fast similarity search, we built a FAISS index from the embeddings, allowing the bot to retrieve only the most relevant posts for a user query rather than scanning all 29,918 posts each time.

We then integrated the BannoBot script, which takes a user’s question, converts it into an embedding, searches the FAISS index for top-k relevant posts, and constructs a prompt including these excerpts. This prompt is passed to a local LLM (Orca-Mini), which generates a natural-language answer in the style and content of your posts. All processing—embedding, search, and LLM inference—occurs on your laptop, ensuring privacy and avoiding cloud APIs.
Finally, we tested the system end-to-end: verifying the JSON, checking embeddings and index consistency, and running the bot interactively. Optional improvements include richer prompts and a GUI wrapper for easier interaction. The result is a fully local, private chatbot that reads your posts semantically and produces coherent answers, effectively turning your entire post archive into an intelligent, searchable personal assistant.

[/hide]

Next, we preprocessed the posts by generating embeddings. Using the MiniLM-L6-v2 model, each post was converted into a 384-dimensional numerical vector capturing its semantic meaning. These vectors were stored locally as embeddings.npy . To enable fast similarity search, we built a FAISS index from the embeddings, allowing the bot to retrieve only the most relevant posts for a user query rather than scanning all 29,918 posts each time.

We then integrated the BannoBot script, which takes a user’s question, converts it into an embedding, searches the FAISS index for top-k relevant posts, and constructs a prompt including these excerpts. This prompt is passed to a local LLM (Orca-Mini), which generates a natural-language answer in the style and content of your posts. All processing—embedding, search, and LLM inference—occurs on your laptop, ensuring privacy and avoiding cloud APIs.

Cool. I wonder though...

Quoting Banno

I'll tempt you to do something like this with the entire data file... a master philosophy forum bot...

Like an amalgam of everyone on TPF? Tempting though it is, my instinct is that the wider the range of data, the more it would approach a regular LLM like ChatGPT and lose its own point of view.

Quoting Jamal

Like an amalgam of everyone on TPF?

"My name is Legion, for we are many..."

Given a well-constructed prompt, would it be able to present a range of views?

It woudl still be very small compared with the commercial sites.

I have asked ChatGpt to mimic me based upon its interactions with me, but it does a poor job. I'm much funnier. If @Banno wants a convincing mimic, no need to turn towards AI. I could do a fine job, but I'd quickly be outed. Again, I'm much funnier.

What is frightening is that I, with ancient coding skills and precious little understanding, was able to built the bot sitting in my lounge chair over a cup of tea and some nice fruit cake on a lazy Sunday morning.

Something far-reaching has happened with AI.

Reply to Banno Reply to Hanover

All very interesting but we've gone too far off-topic. Since this is an important topic I'd like to keep it pure.

Quoting Jamal

Like an amalgam of everyone on TPF? Tempting though it is, my instinct is that the wider the range of data, the more it would approach a regular LLM like ChatGPT and lose its own point of view.

You believe the posters here represent a cross section of the public at large?

Reply to Hanover Approach, I said.

New topic if you like.

Reply to Jamal That post was a cross-post, posted before you chastised me. :up:

Reply to Jamal Fair.

Anyone interested in continuing, PM me.

In any case it seems that the result will not get past a few simple lines... Orca Mini can't cut it. Looking at alternatives. And an offer to buy me out from North Korea.

Google has already begun to index tpfarchive.com, no doubt because we've linked to it here.

I forgot to remove the short stories. On the one hand they should be archived, on the other hand some of us (like me and @hypericin) don't want our stories to be publicly available, i.e., published, on the web.

The above issue alerted me to another one: the possibility of SEO penalization for duplicate content. So I've now blocked crawlers with meta tags, a robots.txt file, and also in the web server config, thus preventing search engines from indexing any more pages on tpfarchive.com. I'll remove those blocks when we close the Plush site.

Reply to Jamal Please don't remove them, @Jamal! I like that there is a permanent repository for the stories on the web. I might lose my copies someday, then they will be gone forever. I don't know if you still care, but I actually prefer that they are publicly available at this point. Easier to share with people.

Reply to hypericin

OK, I'll leave them. I've found a decent compromise, which is that they won't be indexed by search engines but anyone can visit those pages, given the URLs (or find them from the archive's search page or whatever).

Reply to Jamal Great, nice compromise.

Quoting Jamal

OK, I'll leave them. I've found a decent compromise, which is that they won't be indexed by search engines but anyone can visit those pages, given the URLs (or find them from the archive's search page or whatever).

Or, you can just copy and paste them (along with relevant information such as the particular contest name and type, date of publication, user vote data, and author, if available) to a new, locked read-only sub forum on the upcoming new site? Unless the comments or reviews are of such dire importance. :snicker:

Or would that result in some sort of unfortunate gray area as far as the legal standards and obligations you're seeking to meet and fulfill are concerned? :chin:

If so, perhaps there can be a further compromise such as a single pinned thread in some sub forum that links every single short story/poem/literature from every competition that links to its respective content on the archive site? Or would even that be disallowed?

Reply to Outlander

I'm not migrating any posts to the new site, so the current compromise is fine. As far as I recall it's only me and @hypericin who ever cared anyway.

The one big improvement I could make to the archive is to include the categories. For some reason Plush gave me an export without categories so I just went ahead and built the archive without them. Now I've got them so I could potentially incorporate them somehow. Maybe just in the search and your-posts pages.

Quoting Jamal

The one big improvement I could make to the archive is to include the categories.

Please do. :up:

Quoting Jamal

The one big improvement I could make to the archive is to include the categories.

I'll give you one hint.

To retrieve the category automatically from the HTML content of the topic URL, use this Regular Expression (which I'm sure Perl supports):

[hide="Reveal"]

<li class="(?:.+?) Active"><strong><a href="(.+?)">(.+?)</a></strong></li>

[/hide]

Item #1 will of course contain the fully matched string, Item #2 will contain the URL structure (ie. "/categories/1/general-philosophy") and, the magic Item #3 will contain the Category Name (ie. "General Philosophy").

Now all you have to do is fetch and retrieve 13,000 webpages and sort through them. Not as daunting as it might sound, but you should know that. :smile:

(Unless of course the "dump" or rawest form of database storage you can access has some field or notation for category, in which case it'd be even easier!)

Quoting Outlander

(Unless of course the "dump" or rawest form of database storage you can access has some field or notation for category, in which case it'd be even easier!)

Yep. I've done it already. :up:

(not live yet)

Reply to Baden Reply to Outlander

Done: categories can now be selected on the search page. Plus you can run a search without entering a search term to get all the discussions in a category. If it doesn't work maybe you need to clear your cached files.

Reply to Jamal

Nice. :cool: :up:

Quoting Jamal

If you're interested, the main software requirements to accommodate the new laws are more configuration, crucially including the configuration of the sign-up form, and more moderation tools, crucially including the flagging and moderation of direct messages.

Interesting. That's the sort of thing I was wondering about. I know it can also get tricky running an international website.

Quoting Jamal

I notice you didn't wait for an answer and just went ahead and did it. So preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop for more than a moment to think if you should (to paraphrase Michael Crichton).

What you point to here is significant beyond belief.

Quoting Jamal

When the sidebar is collapsed it's pretty distraction-free, no?

Quoting Leontiskos

Yes, I think so. That ability to collapse the sidebar is what I was thinking of. :up:

Just to note, I've learned that there is an undisclosed shortcut to hide/show the Discourse sidebar ('=').

Dare I ask, is there to be a treatment for private messages?

There's some good stuff in my inbox, from various members. It runs to twelve pages.

Reply to Banno

I've got all the messages, I think, so yeah, I'm pretty sure I can send you an export of your conversations.

Reply to Jamal Perfect. Thanks - as it comes. More grist for the bot.

Reply to Banno

I may look back on this moment and think, "how could I have let this happen?"

Reply to Jamal

I had wondered as much. Enough rope?

Thanks for your efforts, Jamal.

Quoting Jamal

And yes, I think we should probably open up the new site, to allow anyone to sign up, though with admin approval to activate accounts.

Will all the previously banned members get a second chance? Lol

But seriously - Sounds like a decent amount of work. Look forward to seeing how it turns out. :up:

Quoting Mikie

Will all the previously banned members get a second chance? Lol

I too was thinking of this yesterday. I wonder whether they would dare to sign up on the new platform.

They must be aware that TPF moved to new software to do it, though.

Quoting Mikie

Will all the previously banned members get a second chance? Lol

But seriously

I'd like to see the return of @Streetlight to be honest.

Seriously, I think we gave banned members a second chance when we moved in 2015, and one or two members were reincarnated.

Quoting Jamal

Seriously, I think we gave banned members a second chance when we moved in 2015, and one or two members were reincarnated.

Interesting! @Agent Smith and @karl stone may have a second chance. :smile:

Quoting Jamal

I'd like to see the return of Streetlight to be honest.

Ditto. I'd like to see TGW back as well.

Reply to bert1

Yeah, but I have a feeling he was one of those reincarnated members, who had been banned on the first site. Don't quote me on that.

Quoting Jamal

I'd like to see the return of Streetlight to be honest.

Seriously, I think we gave banned members a second chance when we moved in 2015, and one or two members were reincarnated.

Oh no kidding? Cool.

@Jamal

If Marco comes back I may have to burn the place to the ground.

Quoting Michael

If Marco comes back I may have to burn the place to the ground.

See this is why places like this, at least in the Lounge, should have a topic or something where past "legends" (or villains to some) can have their stories told unbiased from both sides of the proverbial fire.

Don't you ever go to a new place and wonder what the stories, tales, and legends of the locals are? What the people who actually made a place what it is today have to say and what they feel and as a result what the true zeitgeist of a place is beyond friendly smiles and pleasantries? The blood, sweat, and tears behind the benches and walls we pass by every day without batting an eye or giving a second thought toward really are and what they represent to those who have seen and lived times we ourselves have not?

I've been here for 5 years. I've seen the name "Porat" come up a few times, but with such intensity and quiet understanding between those who seem to know, it's... curious. Meanwhile, myself and new persons just view this as almost a mental tic or idiosyncrasy from otherwise respected posters because, it just doesn't make any sense where the rage or discontent comes from. It demands an explanation. And those who are free from fear due to being unbiased or otherwise not "in the wrong" have no reason for all darkness and secrets to become light and openly discussed.

Quoting Outlander

See this is why places like this, at least in the Lounge, should have a topic or something where past "legends" (or villains to some) can have their stories told unbiased from both sides of the proverbial fire.

See here for an unbiased account of Marco.

Quoting Outlander

I've been here for 5 years. I've seen the name "Porat" come up a few times, but with such intensity and quiet understanding between those who seem to know, it's... curious.

Before https://thephilosophyforum.com there was another forum. The owner of the old forum sold it to a man named Eric Porat. Some of us had concerns about him, and the future of the forum, so Jamal made this place and we moved over.

Quoting Michael

Some of us had concerns about him, and the future of the forum, so Jamal made this place and we moved over.

I recall hearing enough about "the old place" so as to form a relevant and accurate enough (albeit understandably underlying-ly ignorant) narrative, yes,

So someone uninformed, and forgive my ignorance, a man made less than ideal decisions and temporary (albeit unnecessary) sufferings or hardships were placed on many folk at the time. Yet a new land was formed and thus all passed or alleged and perceived hardships should no longer hold any meaning.

So, why don't we, that is to say all who were involved see this as a happy ending, per se?

Forgiveness is not an acceptance of past wrongs but rather an acknowledgement that a better future not only can but has been obtained. There will always be people who gain power who use said temporary transient position unwisely. This is expected, nay, a requirement for the free and at times tumultuous world in which we live.

I don't see how the memory of this man is not all but water under the proverbial bridge. What have you to fear in the present day and age as far as this person is concerned?

Quoting Outlander

I don't see how the memory of this man is not all but water under the proverbial bridge. What have you to fear in the present day and age as far as this person is concerned?

Are you asking about Marco?

He's an annoying fucking twat, as elucidated with exceptional eloquence here.

Suffice it to say he's the reason this forum became invitation-only.

Quoting Michael

Are you asking about Marco?

He's an annoying fucking twat, as elucidated with exceptional eloquence here.

So, he's just a guy, one out of 8 billion mind you, nothing special, save for the fact, he that did something some odd years ago nobody else seems to recall, that annoyed you and a few others.

I wasn't there, I don't know, forgive me if that comes off as callous or discounting of your ability to perceive right and wrong or goodness and virtue in men, I just know nothing of the guy beyond the few sporadic mentions of his and a few other unspeakables here, and your comment, seeing as you're a moderator, piqued my interest, is all.

I will read the topic you linked to now in full, every comment, specifically those who are staff or who otherwise seemed to have been here a while to see what type of "larger story" or "picture" one can reasonably ascertain.

I thank you personally for your response and suggest perhaps, due to my nagging curiosity, might have been responsible in leading this topic slightly off topic. This was not intentional. I apologize, and honestly thank you for indulging in my juvenile curiosity, and will direct any other further comment or inquiry of the matter to you in a private message if I feel the need to. (Which I likely won't)

While, as I'm sure you may be able to gather, your "Sleeping Beauty" thread may be above my current level of understanding (just a wee bit over my head), I look forward to engaging with you in it in the not too distant future. :smile:

Reply to Outlander

He was banned — probably for low post quality — but then he created a new account, so we banned him again, but then he created a new account, so we banned him again, ...

This repeated literally hundreds of times. He just would not stop. Every day for months we were banning his new accounts and it was driving us crazy so we just gave up and turned off direct registration.

Reply to Michael

Now I’m curious. I searched for his name and there’s several. Was his name just Marco? Seems like that guy is still a member.

Quoting Mikie

Was his name just Marco?

Polo!

Quoting Michael

He was banned — probably for low post quality — but then he created a new account, so we banned him again, but then he created a new account, so we banned him again, ...

Marco expressed a lot of affection for TPF, but you repeatedly banned him and treated him as a [I]twat.[/I] :sad:

Although this all seems good and necessary technical changes, I question the choice of the UK for the business jurisdiction.

UK is restricting free speech pretty severely and those existing and any new restrictions will automatically apply to the forum.

I strongly recommend choosing a jurisdiction where that would not be an issue, or at leasts not a super likely issue.

US would be far more preferable over the UK, and there would be plenty of free speech allies if ever the US government did want to moderate clear political expression, which seems unlikely.

However by far and away the best option is @Benkei legally administers the business in his country, presumably the Netherlands.

It's not a casual thing making a business structure, you're then liable as a business and anyone can sue you for any amount. The protections you have as a private individual do not extend to a business you happen to own. If you lose a lawsuit the business will be taken to settle the damages.

Simply because you don't make much money does not mean you can't be sued for enormous sums.

Honestly the idea of making a business to manage small donated sums seems to me extremely foolish.

However, if there's commitment to that, then 100% the only reasonable implementation is that @Benkei takes care of the administration aspects. Small errors in paperwork can lead to audits and fines and endless bureaucracy. Just filing the taxes properly will likely cost more than this 100 Euros a month.

A business needs a certain scale to function properly or then not function at all and sit on the "shelf". but any business activity creates liabilities that can result in both government and civil legal actions that are just as complicated to manage if you are making 100 pounds a month or a million pounds a month, the different being if you're making a million pounds a month you can pay someone to deal with the complications.

@Benkei can for sure avoid most if not all pitfalls from happening in the first place, and can just go represent in lawsuits that are clearly just legal harassment.

If he's not willing, then I'd strongly recommend carefully thinking through both the legal structure, jurisdiction, the business plan (if a business is really the way to go), all the alternatives.

Once a business exists and IP is owned by that business it is business IP essentially forever.

But definitely the UK is a poor choice for such a business operation. Requires just one UK national to complain to UK authorities that their feelings have been hurt and the site could be easily shutdown.

Quoting boethius

UK is restricting free speech pretty severely and those existing and any new restrictions will automatically apply to the forum.

Quoting boethius

However, if there's commitment to that, then 100% the only reasonable implementation is that Benkei takes care of the administration aspects. Small errors in paperwork can lead to audits and fines and endless bureaucracy. Just filing the taxes properly will likely cost more than this 100 Euros a month.

Oh no!!!! @Benkei stop being missing and help him, please!!!

It is a life or death risk.

[hide="Reveal"]https://postimages.org/][/url][/hide]

Reply to boethius

Interesting! I also feel it relevant to note TPF does, apparently, have its share of enemies. Not really "enemies" of the forum itself (that would be weird) but people who have axes to grind toward one or more high-ranking staff members and would consider as you say "blowing the whistle" for things that they likely could introduce themself or otherwise would reasonably show up organically either way.

The staff generally seems left-leaning as it is, people who tend to post with assertions or implications that could be read as "offensive" are generally lopped in under "low quality posts" and don't tend to proliferate here for that reason alongside others. There are intelligent people who have a history of intelligent (acceptable) posts that do express beliefs that others may find not only disagreeable but perhaps offensive and inappropriate, but I can count them on a single hand. Point being, it seems the "UK authorities" and general TPF staff sentiment are more or less on the same page as far as what should be allowed and what shouldn't. But you never know. You never know. Good looking out! :smile:

Reply to boethius

The UK Online Safety Act 2023 applies to sites that can be accessed and joined by UK users, regardless of where the servers are actually located. TPF has a significant number of UK members, so OSA compliance is a requirement whether the company is registered in the UK or not.

As for hosting, putting the site on servers outside of the UK doesn't make us any safer under the OSA. The law targets the operator, not the server location, so our obligations remain the same whether the servers are in the UK or elsewhere.

In any case, the new site will not be hosted on UK servers. If you are concerned about these matters it might be worth pointing out that the current platform, Plush Forums, is a UK company, but our soon-to-be platform, Discourse, is an American one.

I don't think registering the company outside the UK would reduce legal obligations, and it would massively complicate things for me. Since I'll be continuing to run the forum, forming a UK company under my own control is the best way to keep TPF running and legally compliant.

I am a UK citizen. But since I'll be continuing as the forum's administrator, this is simply a fact of the situation that won't change.

And let's be realistic. I don't want to minimize our (mainly my) responsibilities—technically TPF probably does fall under the OSA—but the law is aimed at high-risk platforms where illegal or harmful content can spread quickly to large audiences, e.g., social media, video-sharing, live-streaming, and messaging apps used by children. A deliberately compliant and heavily and accountably moderated philosophy forum like TPF, with mostly text-based discussion, clear rules, policies specifically addressing the OSA's concerns, and reporting tools for all posts and even private messages, is very low risk.

Quoting boethius

Requires just one UK national to complain to UK authorities that their feelings have been hurt and the site could be easily shutdown.

That's not how it works. The OSA doesn't allow the authorities to shut down a site just because someone's feelings are hurt. It goes after sites and apps that neglect to take steps to prevent and remove illegal content. By implementing special policies, reporting mechanisms, and moderation of everything, TPF will be able to fully comply with the OSA.

Quoting boethius

Honestly the idea of making a business to manage small donated sums seems to me extremely foolish.

However, if there's commitment to that, then 100% the only reasonable implementation is that Benkei takes care of the administration aspects. Small errors in paperwork can lead to audits and fines and endless bureaucracy. Just filing the taxes properly will likely cost more than this 100 Euros a month.

Note that since the company will be a micro-entity, accounts and administration will not be costly and burdensome at all. You are vastly overstating it.

Quoting boethius

It's not a casual thing making a business structure, you're then liable as a business and anyone can sue you for any amount. The protections you have as a private individual do not extend to a business you happen to own. If you lose a lawsuit the business will be taken to settle the damages.

I don't get this. If TPF is going to be sued I'd rather it was run as a company, since otherwise I'd be personally liable. I mean, that's the whole point.

Whether it's really necessary or not is debatable though, I agree.

Quoting Jamal

Note that since the company will be a micro-entity, accounts and administration will not be costly and burdensome at all. You are vastly overstating it.

Zero overstating it.

People make absurd or predatory lawsuits all the time.

Judges make absurd rulings all the time with absurdly high amounts, and if the idea is the business runs off 100 dollars a month, even the essentially minimum amount losing any court case (of paying the other side legal fees) will be super high in the context of this budget.

That there's also the possibility of something insane happening and being sued for millions (and hundreds of thousands is "normal" business lawsuit level) should be taken into serious consideration.

Quoting Jamal

I don't get this. If TPF is going to be sued I'd rather it was run as a company, since otherwise I'd be personally liable.

That's not really how it works.

First you need to still deal with the lawsuit and if you don't then held in contempt of court and become responsible for the damages anyways.

Second, I'm not sure about UK law, but usually micro businesses are personal liability businesses, just adding a business name and various business codes to your personal identity.

To have limited liability you need a limited liability business, what ltd. means, and that requires shareholders and a board of directors and it is first of all the shareholders that are not personally liable for the debts of the business and second the board of directors but only if they satisfy certain conditions, referred to as "due care" for short.

Board members are only immune for personal liability for the debts of the business if they've acted both lawfully and in due care, meaning their decisions made both legal and business sense at the time.

Then there's how the law is actually practiced which may not make any actual sense.

That you're confident you've acted lawfully and in due care does not mean others can't argue the exact opposite and get a judge to agree, once a judge agrees then you're liable. Of course you could then appeal but that will take time and money.

People could have some real or (more likely) perceived grievance or then simply suing you to take control of the company and then get as much of your personal assets as they can.

Now, most "norma" micro-businesses wouldn't have these concerns, if they are selling knitted socks in their spare time for example, but you'll be in an area of business that is prone to lawsuits: speech people don't like.

Furthermore, you'll be amassing a new trove of data and a decent micro brand to go with your micro business, that people may see as valuable and may see that just suing you for anything will give them your business and your trove of data basically for free (and in fact you'll be paying them for the privilege).

Now, as just an individual you are only liable where you live and you have the sympathy of the court as a resident and just a "normal person" doing a hobby. So you could defend yourself.

As soon as you're doing business in the UK you're liable in the UK and anyone can sue you in the UK and "I'm not really a business, just a normal person with a hobby" judges will just laugh at.

Judges don't differentiate much between size of business, but generally have the attitude that "you want to do business, you got it. And everything that goes with it".

What changes specifically is that judges do not generally hold normal people to "ought to know" standards of highly obscure and technical legal information. You ought to know you can't randomly hit people in the face for no reason, sure, but highly technical regulations that affect your hobby and ... also only if you were a business, judges will be unlikely to say you ought to know.

However, as soon as you're doing business you ought to know everything legally relevant to running your business and anyone can go to court and hold you to account to the letter of the law, often with nonsensical arguments and no evidence, but zero sympathy from the judge that you "aren't really a business", and who maybe simply impressed by a lot technobabble and fancy clothes, and so the only solution is to hire people with even fancier clothes to impress the judge with even more technobabble.

Just one lawsuit is a major pain in the ass to deal with, is the point, and anyone in the entire world that thinks you've published something you shouldn't can bring you to court over it.

And this is true for any jurisdiction, but the UK seems to be making every more stricter speech control laws, so just seems to me inviting danger.

Now, in a jurisdiction like the US with super strong freedom of speech laws (whatever else we may criticize the US for they have been jealous of their freedom of speech and that's been reflected in the courts) then you would likely have the sympathy of the court who would just throw out any lawsuits.

Hearing a case against a philosophy forum is likely the last thing any US judge would ever consider (with the exception the case has nothing to do with philosophy). And you'd immediately get all sorts of support from all sorts of freedom of speech organizations and maybe even Elon Musk himself, would be an instant national scandal a philosophy forum is being sued for discussing philosophy.

If you have the same confidence in UK judges and courts, then ok, maybe I'm wrong.

However, jurisdiction in this case is the best protection.

As soon as there's a freedom of speech grey area then people have grounds to sue over speech, their cases can't be thrown out, and just dealing with the lawsuit is likely to be impossible for a micro-business.

Quoting boethius

Second, I'm not sure about UK law, but usually micro businesses are personal liability businesses, just adding a business name and various business codes to your personal identity.

Quoting boethius

To have limited liability you need a limited liability business, what ltd. means, and that requires shareholders and a board of directors and it is first of all the shareholders that are not personally liable for the debts of the business and second the board of directors but only if they satisfy certain conditions, referred to as "due care" for short.

No, a micro-entity is a type of limited company. I have run limited companies before. I had one on my own when I was a contract programmer. It was not difficult.

With this specific issue as with all others you bring up, your worries are entirely misplaced.

Quoting Jamal

No, a micro-entity is a type of limited company. I have run limited companies before. I had one on my own when I was a contract programmer. It was not difficult.

Well that makes it slightly better, but the key difference is that only your clients would have grounds to sue you as a contract programmer and that would be costly for them. Logical solution is to just contract someone else next time if they aren't happy with your work.

So basic sub-contracting is not an area prone to lawsuits, as it would cost the firm more to sue than they would get back. Obviously plenty of small businesses operate without issue.

As important, you're also not developing any IP as a contractor. There would be no reason for anyone to go through the trouble to take your software contracting business away from you.

As we saw with the previous philosophy forum, that motivation does exist for philosophy forums; there's IP, a sort of brand, social network etc.

No one wants your software business as it has no value apart from you doing the software work.

So, simply existing as a brand online with IP (domain, data, network, brand etc.) may make you a target of some random person who wants it. If it's your personal belonging (as it is now) there's no real effective way to do that. As a just a person you can only be sued in the district where you live and you can just show up in court and defend yourself and your hobby. However, it would be far easier to prey on your philosophy forum IP in the UK (thousands of times easier) through a series of contrived lawsuits for the purpose.

Then there's anyone who really does take issue with something said on this website and goes through the trouble of filing complaints (all sorts of channels are available to complain about businesses), and even suing you in UK court. It's super unlikely someone taking issue with your code would be passionate enough to take every legal measure available against you, but someone that takes issue with your speech or speech on your website could very well be passionate enough to do that.

And the issue is it takes just one person who wants yo'shit or then hates your guts to have all these deleterious effects.

Reply to Jamal

As for liability, having limited liability is not written in stone.

If you get sued for hundreds of thousands of pounds the winning party could then argue that it was not lawful to create that kind of liability as a small business to shield yourself from the legal consequences of your reckless speech actions and therefore you should be held personally liable.

And if a business goes bankrupt there are essentially prima facie grounds to hear the case that it went bankrupt for incompetent and unlawful actions.

It's difficult to argue that you're not competent enough to run a business but you are competent enough to run a business legally as grounds for a case to be thrown out.

Why most small businesses don't get sued then is that they have nothing worth taking and have no public exposure, dealing only with people and businesses they know (such as software contracting) and can easily navigate things with common sense. However, public exposure to lawsuits, such as speech people don't like, means anyone in the world can take issue with you and bring you to court, put you through various consumer and data protection processes and other legal "remedies" to what ails them.

Quoting boethius

As for liability, having limited liability is not written in stone.

If you get sued for hundreds of thousands of pounds the winning party could then argue that it was not lawful to create that kind of liability as a small business to shield yourself from the legal consequences of your reckless speech actions and therefore you should be held personally liable.

I think his point was, based on his understanding, which I assume to be accurate, OSA compliance basically protects a person from all of that, assuming they abide by its guidelines, which require ability to moderate and delete offending content. It's not rational to attribute a site owner as somehow being able to know what unknown random persons they didn't raise who happened to sign up and begin using their publicly-available site say (freedom of religion is freedom of belief, which is tied to ability to speak such belief in the form of speech, otherwise that's a proxy violation of freedom of religion) before they say it, only that if it is deemed offensive or problematic that it may be removed in a timely and permanent manner.

As it stands now, Jamal is a UK citizen open to anyone who is also a UK citizen to take him to court, if they have the wherewithal, of course. If I, as a nobody, notice offensive or extreme content, I would simply contact the hosting provider. And yes, it does vary on jurisdiction, precisely as you say. Though what is interesting is this is "hosted" software (as will the new forum be, presumably) meaning it depends on not only where those servers are located but how experienced (or inclined toward the particular site owner or free speech in general) the forum company that provides the software and hosting, which per basically all forum software licensing agreements it can terminate the forum "owner's" license or ability to use it at an any time for any reason, mind you. This is the key difference between the current and future dynamic versus if Jamal would have coded a forum software himself from the ground up

As an aside: What would stop me from filing a request, right now as things are, to either the forum company or if this were actually privately-hosted, the hosting company and essentially accomplishing the same thing (getting the site shut down or forced to remove offending content or otherwise fundamentally changing how it operates?

That said, you seem to know your stuff. Such wisdom is best heeded, perhaps? :smile:

Reply to Jamal

And then there's the actual legitimate lawsuits that you can face from your actual customers.

As soon as you're a business, anyone paying your business is now a client and getting a service.

If you ban them for reasons they don't feel are legitimate they can bring consumer protection complaints also sue you in UK court for financial and emotional damages.

As "normal citizens" they need not ought to know anything, can represent themselves, get coaching and leeway from the judge to seek the justice they are due, which is at minimum a judge hearing their case and making you account for your actions.

There's also legal arguments that exist you likely cannot even imagine exist and are even more surprised judges take them seriously.

For example, right here today you've just explained your primary purpose in making a business is to just continue on as you were before, not grow in anyway, just just pocket the benefits of limited liability protection. Well, someone who's already bankrupted you in court (years from now) can then take this conversation and use your words as evidence your business was bad faith, you never intended to build a real business but just wanted to personally protect yourself from your unlawful speech machinations you call philosophy, you've done nothing different than what you did before as a personal hobby, and therefore the courts should not extend to you the privileges awarded to real serious business people trying to grow the economy with blood, sweat, and tears: that you cannot under the law make a business solely for the purposes of hiding from liability, which it is written in the book of "A new home for TPF" is Jamal's primary consideration in this affair.

Quoting Outlander

I think his point was, based on his understanding, which I assume to be accurate, OSA compliance basically protects a person from all of that, assuming they abide by its guidelines, which include ability to moderate and delete offending content.

What should happen and what does happen are two different things.

I'm not disputing that Jamal can run the forum lawfully.

I'm pointing out that is up for interpretation that only a judge gets to decide, and just going through the process can be immensely expensive.

There's also essentially endless areas of the law to consider, so even if one area was indeed "super locked down" a lawsuit could arise in another area.

To put it another way, someone who hires a lawyer in the UK to find some pretext to sue Jamal's business will almost certainly make good on that contract.

Quoting Outlander

As it stands now, Jamal is a UK citizen open to anyone who is also a UK citizen to take him to court, if they have the wherewithal, of course.

If he lived in the UK that would be slightly better as you can at least show up in court and defend yourself.

Quoting Outlander

And yes, it does vary on jurisdiction, precisely as you say. Though what is interesting is this is "hosted" software (as will the new forum be, presumably) meaning it depends on not only where those servers are located but how experienced (or inclined toward the particular site owner or free speech in general) the forum company that provides the software and hosting, which it can terminate the forum "owner's" license or ability to use it at anytime, mind you. What would stop me from filing a request, right now as things are, to either the forum company or if this were actually privately-hosted, the hosting company and essentially accomplishing the same thing (getting the site shut down or forced to remove offending content or otherwise fundamentally changing how it operates?

Yes, even more exposure to legal harassment.

And my main issue is the motivation of people who take issue with Jamal and the damage they can do with zero merits at all. Endless ways to legally harass a business, so the more important question is if that motivation would arise.

On top of that, no one is perfect so then there's also all the cases that can arise where the plaintiff actually has merit and the damage that would do (even if every member of philosophy forum thinks the law in question has no merit, that won't matter to a judge).

Quoting Outlander

That said, you seem to know your stuff. Such wisdom is best heeded, perhaps? :smile:

Thank you for the appreciation. For some reason experience in business is rarely valued by people wanting to start a business. I'm not really sure why, but I think movies have oversimplified things for people.

But basic recommendation would be to try to take advantage of a lawyer actually being part of our community. That would be simplest and surest way. Even as an experienced business person I'd thank my lucky stars if @Benkei agreed to legally administer my micro forum business. I have zero idea if he would, but that would solve all the above issues: predators look for weak targets and a lawyer is not a weak target so that in itself would solve 99% of potential problems, in addition to @Benkei actually knowing what the law actually says and how a judge is likely to interpret it.

But whatever the decision it cannot be changed easily, so should be really well thought out.

Serious consideration should be also given to making a simple non-profit.

There are several advantages for this situation:

A non-profit has more sympathy with the courts as a judges generally view non-profits as naive do-gooders with a social mission (if it makes some sense what the non-profit is about) who shouldn't be legally harassed. So that would also solve a lot of the legal problems.

The assets of a non-profit can't be so easily preyed upon by bad actors, so the brand, database, network etc. would be far more secure from legal predation, even if someone did start to legally harass the non-profit.

A non-profit does not have a client relationship with people donating, so gets rid of all those legal problems of payment-for-service.

Whereas I think most of the forum members would agree we don't want commercial advertising here, a non-profit could get grants from other non-profits and foundations who like the cause of dialogue between different ideologies (or then want to be seen supporting the idea), and since it's not advertisement those logos need not be prominent but can be somewhere.

Grants could even be raised to expand operations, such as in person conferences and live debates, maybe even a podcast. Pretty much anything new would be easier to raise donation or grant money than try to make commercially successful.

And these advantages could be easily combined with the advantages of @Benkei helping to legally administer the structure, if he was so inclined.

How I would recommend structuring things is that there's a core group of administrators and the basic fees can be covered by that core group (such as the 100 per month discussed above and other miscellaneous expenses); of course can also be covered by donations but if the administrators can cover the fees if needs be that is a stable foundation (in exchange they have far more influence than anyone else). In addition to that, then we have part of the forum dedicated to members of the community working on grant applications and raising donations to do more things (obviously in a legal way); so if the money is raised, great, if not then those additional things don't happen and therefore no financial problem happens due to nothing happening.

Reply to boethius

A UK limited company is very simple. In contrast, a non-profit or charitable incorporated organisation (CIO) or similar would mean a lot of bureaucracy, at least in the UK. And I don't know about where you are but as a non-profit we would likely have more legal exposure.

A big headache, and would achieve nothing, so no, we're not going down that route.

Reply to Jamal

My main argument is against the UK jurisdiction, mainly due to all the speech laws that have been created, or suddenly enforced in new ways.

I'm not doubting that the basic administration of a small business is an issue. For example if you were talking about making a new business structure to do contracting work none of this would be relevant.

However, speech people don't like regularly turns into lawsuits, so I do not see how you'd be somehow immune.

There's three categories of problems:

1. An individual makes it their mission to make as many problems for you as possible. For example someone you have or will ban. You need to map out what they would be capable of doing legally, both through consumer and data protection mechanisms as well as lawsuits. What can they force you to deal with. What grounds they could have to have their suite heard and what merits they could have to actually win.

2. Legal predation to take philosophy forum assets and perhaps even your assets. If someone wanted to create a pretext to sue you to then take control of your business, could that be done and how easily? Keep in mind, even if it's clear that's what they are doing, saying so publicly would just result in another defamation suite.

3. Harassment by the government. Maybe someone posts on the forum something about some minister that minister finds out about (as they obsessively police their online mentions) and then uses their government power to go after your business and you yourself: audits, hate speech, money laundering, whatever.

You need to either be confident none of these things would ever happen or then be confident in a strategy and resources available to deal with each one.

Then there's practical issues, starting with not living in the UK. Even if you had representation, a representative can't testify on your behalf so if there's some issue that goes to court, no matter how silly, you'd need to fly back to the UK to be in court for the hearing to explain that the plaintiffs version of events didn't happen and makes no sense. The plaintiff may know you don't live in the UK and so insist on hearings as much as possible to force you to travel and spend money and have your life disrupted.

If you lived in the UK then you could analyze all the issues and then have the plan to just go defend yourself in court whenever you need to, trust to the court's good judgement. However, if the plaintiff can force you to spend money then they can just keep doing that until you're broke.

Reply to Hanover

Freedom of speech does pretty much exist in America, land of the free.

Quoting boethius

3. Harassment by the government. Maybe someone posts on the forum something about some minister that minister finds out about (as they obsessively police their online mentions) and then uses their government power to go after your business and you yourself: audits, hate speech, money laundering, whatever.

Wouldn't that be like, a huge deal, turning @Jamal into a celebrity overnight and elevating this quiet little corner of the Internet into something anyone here wouldn't ever imagine in their wildest dreams? He would be the ultimate "every man" martyr everybody and their grandma would get behind—point being, it would make the elected official look bad which is not in any elected official's MO. No?

Quoting boethius

However, if the plaintiff can force you to spend money then they can just keep doing that until you're broke.

Aren't there equal safeguards against this blatant and codified form of abuse of the legal system? Frivolous lawsuits, "lawfare", etc?

Quoting boethius

Freedom of speech does pretty much exist in America, land of the free.

I mean it's probably safer in the US, but not worth the hassle for that added safety. It strikes me as overkill to make us bulletproof. It feels like you might be catastrophizing and overburdening.

In other words, if we do our best to be above board, we'll be fine in the UK.

Quoting Outlander

Wouldn't that be like, a huge deal, turning Jamal into a celebrity overnight and elevating this quiet little corner of the Internet into something anyone here wouldn't ever imagine in their wildest dreams?

That would be my plan, but I'd only be confident of that if the business is based in the US as freedom of speech is such a big deal for Americans, plenty of organizations and celebrities dedicated to the cause.

However, UK judges could just put a gag order on @Jamal .. and then he'd never be famous :confused:

Quoting Outlander

Aren't there equal safeguards against this blatant and codified form of abuse of the legal system? Frivolous lawsuits, "lawfare", etc?

The problem is proving that is what's happening, then making a law suite about that, then all the suites playing out in court.

But basically, someone who passionately hates @Jamal and takes some issue with something he's done, clearly genuinely believes in their cause as proven by their fanatical endless passionate hatred.

Someone who is really a well resourced predator would have the sophistication and accomplices to carry out such a crime without creating any evidence that is what is happening. They will come to court as simply country folk with good cause and better reputations.

Such an actor could make a company to make a company to make a company to, all in different countries, just to sue @Jamal.

Quoting Jamal

A UK limited company is very simple. In contrast, a non-profit or charitable incorporated organisation (CIO) or similar would mean a lot of bureaucracy, at least in the UK.

As it has to be. You clearly stated that you want to set up the new version of TPF according to a legal framework. This limited company will be run in the UK, according to British law. I don't see any problem with this. Wondering whether someone would sue me or not for "consumer, financial or legitimate damages" is a bit twisted.

I think some folks are obsessed with the stateless oasis they wish to live in...You do very well to start the company in British territory since you are a UK citizen. It is logical and understandable. It gives me confidence. Setting it up in a tax haven like the Netherlands or Belice would be odder, I think.

Quoting boethius

My main argument is against the UK jurisdiction, mainly due to all the speech laws that have been created, or suddenly enforced in new ways.

The Online Safety Act is precisely the legislation I am setting up the new site to comply with. By the time we launch we'll have compliance nailed down in place: risk assessment, policies, reporting tools, moderation processes, documentation thereof. UK jurisdiction isn't a liability but rather the legal context we're deliberately addressing.

With all this talk of "speech laws," it might be an idea to put things in perspective. The OSA targets:

• Terrorism content: material that encourages, glorifies, or provides instruction for terrorism, or originates from a proscribed terrorist organisation
• Child sexual exploitation & abuse
• Content that depicts or promotes child sexual abuse
• Incitement to violence or hatred
• Criminal threats, harassment, or stalking
• Revenge porn / intimate image abuse
• Fraud, scams, or facilitation of financial crime

Even though we are low-risk with respect to these things, we are going to have a system that can deal with them and that can be seen to be serious about them.

Reply to Jamal

Is all this about risks to freedom of speech in the UK? I'm no expert in those legal things based on nations, but wouldn't Ireland be better since almost all companies operating in Europe seem to have their office there for billing and legal. Seems like the most free place in that regard.

Well, Sweden or any nordic nation would be even better I guess, I don't think there's any real legal issues here except if someone threatens to kill or do such harm or something. So for legal reasons that would probably be the safest. I guess even France holds freedom of speech in high regard. But I guess that would only create a lot of hassle and problems with the business side of things having it somewhere else.

Regardless, as you listed above, those things are pretty basic things to ban, so I don't think UK would be a problem.

Quoting Outlander

Wouldn't that be like, a huge deal, turning Jamal into a celebrity overnight and elevating this quiet little corner of the Internet into something anyone here wouldn't ever imagine in their wildest dreams? He would be the ultimate "every man" martyr everybody and their grandma would get behind—point being, it would make the elected official look bad which is not in any elected official's MO. No?

Jamal becomes a champion for a true place of discussion, showing the world that there are places of discourse that doesn't turn to polarized cesspools in an instant. Fighting the power of governments for the freedom of philosophical discussions... could be a future film based on the history of the forum. I got dibs to the film rights :fire:

Reply to javi2541997

:up:

Quoting Jamal

Terrorism content: material that encourages, glorifies, or provides instruction for terrorism, or originates from a proscribed terrorist organisation

This is the one I'd be worried about.

But the basic gist of what I'm trying to say is that "following the rules" is not anyways a way to avoid court and the expenses of even going to court.

Someone can just say you're breaking the law, take things out of context, even fabricate evidence that never happened or make wild claims about what did happen. Who's to say you're in the right and did nothing wrong?

A lengthy and expensive court process.

Quoting boethius

Such an actor could make a company to make a company to make a company to, all in different countries, just to sue Jamal.

Remind me again why you think it's better if I get sued personally rather than The Philosophy Forum Ltd.

Quoting boethius

Someone who is really a well resourced predator would have the sophistication and accomplices to carry out such a crime without creating any evidence that is what is happening. They will come to court as simply country folk with good cause and better reputations.

Such an actor could make a company to make a company to make a company to, all in different countries, just to sue Jamal.

I mean, I'd probably consider agreeing with @Hanover at this point.

The scenario you're describing is like something out of an international spy movie—almost. :smirk:

No one person could ever really be as "invulnerable" to the level of hypothetical you describe, I'd wager. (A wealthy and well-oiled quasi-criminal organization, let alone an entire government who makes it their waking purpose to come after one man, it'd be much easier just to buy him out, I'd figure)

The question I had initially the moment I first read the topic of a new forum was: "Why?" Naturally he answers "why" in the post, one of the primary reasons being legal safety/resilience followed by reliance on a larger, more successful forum software company (Plush doesn't update or really "do" anything these days and hasn't for quite some time). I don't know much about OSA compliance or UK data/Internet laws in general (other than they're pretty strict and to some people unfair/possibly Constitutionally unsound), but, do you think his main reasons in the first post of this thread are not as pertinent or vital to a continued and secure operation of TPF as he attributes them to be? :chin:

Quoting boethius

But the basic gist of what I'm trying to say is that "following the rules" is not anyways a way to avoid court and the expenses of even going to court.

Someone can just say you're breaking the law, take things out of context, even fabricate evidence that never happened or make wild claims about what did happen. Who's to say you're in the right and did nothing wrong?

A lengthy and expensive court process.

Rather than an argument against forming a UK company, this seems to be an argument against existing at all.

Quoting Hanover

I mean it's probably safer in the US, but not worth the hassle for that added safety. It strikes me as overkill to make us bulletproof. It feels like you might be catastrophizing and overburdening.

In other words, if we do our best to be above board, we'll be fine in the UK.

:up:

Quoting Jamal

Remind me again why you think it's better if I get sued personally rather than The Philosophy Forum Ltd.

To sue someone personally you need to go to the district where they live, so the issue of physically getting to court is at least solved.

Once in court you are just a private citizen going about your personal hobby, you're not a business and have none of the responsibilities that go along with that.

A judge will tend to be extremely non-sympathetic to some random foreigner coming and suing a private person in their district and will want to be viewed as protecting citizens that actually live there against vindictive or predatory schemes of outsiders.

There's no expectation that you'd need a lawyer, as you're not a business, or know very well the law, the judge will take that into consideration that you are just a private individual with limited means.

If the judge did rule against you, the damages would also take into account that you are a private individual with limited means and so could be trivial what you're ordered to pay.

The plaintiff's we need to worry about (some random person in the world) would super unlikely live anywhere close to you, so the problem of travel would be reversed and they would need to come and physically be in court to make their case.

All this is a huge disincentive and goes a long way in explaining why no one's ever sued you for banning them.

As soon as you're doing business you get none of these advantages.

If one business had to pay X for some similar thing, then you too should pay X.

There's a list of rules, even if you are following them to the letter, someone can make up a case that you haven't been following them.

All the rules mean is you can be brought to court to account for your rule following.

Quoting Jamal

Rather than an argument against forming a UK company, this seems to be an argument against existing at all.

No, if there's a jurisdiction where judges are likely to simply not hear speech based cases, then that is a huge mitigating factor.

For the expenses of court processes to start accruing, a case needs to be heard by a judge. So if there's a law that you can't say X, Y, and Z then a judge will hear a case by anyone claiming you said that. The case can't be dismissed as the issue is factual and not whether the claim is legal or not to begin with. It could take years to actually prove you never said X, Y and/or Z.

So, if you're (i.e. incorporated structure of whatever kind) in a jurisdiction where you can essentially say anything you want then judges won't hear those cases as the facts don't matter, the plaintiff is not claiming you've acted unlawfully as you can say what you want and therefore there is no factual dispute needing to be resolved by a court process.

Quoting Hanover

In other words, if we do our best to be above board, we'll be fine in the UK.

:up: :up:
.
Quoting Jamal

Rather than an argument against forming a UK company, this seems to be an argument against existing at all.

:up: :up:

Reply to boethius

Again, I have no idea what is going on in your legal system but in UK law, pretty much everything you say in that post is false, and perhaps based on some very peculiar circumstances that you know about from your own life.

In particular I want to shut down this particular untruth:

Quoting boethius

To sue someone personally you need to go to the district where they live, so the issue of physically getting to court is at least solved.

This is simply not true in UK law.

Quoting Jamal

This is simply not true in UK law.

You're saying you could live in Norther Scotland and be forced to appear in a London court by a plaintiff, without the case having any connection to London (except maybe the plaintiff lives there)?

That would indeed be a really unusual legal system.

The usual legal system is that the vast majority of regular people can only be sued in the district where they live.

Exceptions would be things like you have a house in another district and someone is suing about that house (and some reason the district should hear the case concerning that house and that it should belong to you, for example), but most regular people don't have a house elsewhere than where they live ... or any house.

Quoting Jamal

Again, I have no idea what is going on in your legal system but in UK law, pretty much everything you say in that post is false, and perhaps based on some very peculiar circumstances that you know about from your own life.

My own life dealing with both business and court processes.

Your idea that if you just implement the rules reasonably well then you're good is totally false.

People have a right to claim you haven't followed the rules and have a right to make that case and bring that case to court to seek restitution and remedy.

That you think you haven't done and won't do anything wrong does not prevent the above from happening anyways, in any jurisdiction.

The main question is motivation. If no one's ever motivated enough to bring you to court then that obviously won't happen. Your experience with contracting is in that category as businesses don't have time and money to bring contractors to court and engage in years of litigation to recover tiny losses (and I imagine you are good at your job anyways so there's only minor disputes if any).

However, if someone is motivated enough they will find a way to bring you to court.

So that's the essence of my questions:

You have more experience with all the people you've banned than I do, are you confident none of them would bring you to court when they suddenly have consumer rights vis-a-vis The Philosophy Forum Ldt. that would allow them to do so?

Are you confident no one participating or reading the forum would ever interpret anything on the forum as something from the naughty list of no-no's, and be motivated to have their day in court about that?

Are you confident the UK government will never take particular interest in what's said here on their own account for whatever reason?

In a jurisdiction with strong freedom of speech laws (the US being only one of them), none of that analysis is needed as people can't anyways bring you to court over political and artistic speech.

As for legal predation, speech is only one avenue, but could be literally anything, some area of the law you've never even heard about.

Quoting boethius

You're saying you could live in Norther Scotland and be forced to appear in a London court by a plaintiff without the case having any connection to London (except maybe the plaintiff lives there)?

The plaintiff's location is the connection. It's about where the harm has occurred. The upshot is if the alleged harm happened in London, a plaintiff will/can sue in London, even if the defendant lives in Scotland. Apparently that's normal procedure for online publication and is not considered unusual.

Quoting boethius

You have more experience with all the people you've banned than I do, are you confident none of them would bring you to court when they suddenly have consumer rights vis-a-vis The Philosophy Forum Ldt.?

Why do you think consumer rights magically appear just because a company exists? They don't. Anyone who could hypothetically sue The Philosophy Forum Ltd could already do the same against me personally today. The company just limits my personal exposure if someone ever did try something.

Quoting boethius

Are you confident no one participating or reading the forum would ever interpret anything on the forum as something from the naughty list of no-no's, and be motivated to have their day in court about that?

The actual legal risk is the same whether I operate TPF as a company or as a sole trader, and we're addressing it through clear policies, risk assessment, etc. etc. etc, as described above.

Quoting boethius

Are you confident the UK government will never take particular interest in what's said here on their own account for whatever reason?

Same answer really. The government doesn't care if I'm just me or a company. Anyway, TPF is a super-low-risk service from the OSA's point of view.

Reply to Jamal

What I'm providing is a framework to analyze liability and business decisions.

You should assume at all times there is a pathway to wild success and a pathway to total destruction. Your actions as well as outside events you have no control of will determine which pathway occurs.

Ultimately, a reasonable business decision is one where the pathway to wild success is more probable than complete destruction (but they are always both within the realm of possibility).

Liability analysis starts with the worst case scenarios.

Either there's some reason those worst case scenarios won't happen: no one's ever been too upset with being banned or what's said, politicians have never taken issue with what random people say about them online, and so on, or then there's a probability estimate that is low enough that the benefits outweigh the risk.

Once the risks are identified you then want to further optimize the strategy and decisions.

Optimization means sensitivity analysis.

The biggest risks in what you want to do are legal hazards due to unlawful speech risks. The most sensitive factor in determining those risks is jurisdiction. The more you're in a jurisdiction where pretty much any speech is not unlawful, then the lower those litigation and other consumer protection mechanisms risk become.

Then for-profit or non-profit would be the next most sensitive factor.

My recommendation would be to aim to make a structure that is financially sustainable and can handle all the kinds of events that are likely to happen, including normal life events like you get sick or have something else you need to do for a while.

Whatever the most suited jurisdiction, perhaps it is as you say and a non-profit is more complicated, but perhaps it can also more easily bring in the resources to thrive.

Quoting boethius

What I'm providing is a framework to analyze liability and business decisions.

Thank you for your efforts and for your interesting contributions, but I remain confident in the path I have mapped out.

Quoting boethius

My recommendation would be to aim to make a structure that is financially sustainable and can handle all the kinds of events that are likely to happen

:up:

Quoting Jamal

The plaintiff's location is the connection. It's about where the harm has occurred.

Again, most regular people don't go cause harm far from where they live.

So a private individual who says something online in Northern Scotland, that someone in London takes issue with, will need to appear in London court?

The offence has occurred in Northern Scotland or in London?

For, we're talking about online speech.

Quoting Jamal

Why do you think consumer rights magically appear just because a company exists? They don't. Anyone who could hypothetically sue The Philosophy Forum Ltd could already do the same against me personally today. The company just limits my personal exposure if someone ever did try something.

Right now philosophy forum is your private property that you don't provide a service through. So it's like inviting us to your private house: you can invite us to come in and you can tell us to go.

Once you're a company, you are by definition providing a service. You can't go to court and say you are a company but you provide no product or service ... yet you do things anyways (i.e. you have activity that creates liability, unlike a shelf or zombie company).

Providing service creates consumer protections.

What you're saying is basically akin to you throw parties every weekend and people just come and party and it's always been easy and you've never had to worry about the law, and therefore if you made a company to organize parties it would be the same level of laissez faire nonchallantness and general unconcern for the law.

The situations of private party and company party service are very different, just more easy to visualize what kind of business liability is created in throwing wildass spanking crazy parties like we all know you do.

You can easily visualize someone choking, starting a fire, having a heart-attack, getting sick from the buffet (or something else entirely!) and then blaming you for it as the party business operator. You can't as easily visualize people taking issue with political and artistic speech because you obviously don't have a problem with political and artistic speech, but you need to really put yourself in the viewpoint of someone who does and what legal mechanism you maybe in the process of creating for them to express their frustrations.

Quoting boethius

Right now philosophy forum is your private property that you don't provide a service through. So it's like inviting us to your private house: you can invite us to come in and you can tell us to go.

Once you're a company, you are by definition providing a service.

No, legally I'm already providing a service. Users already have the same rights they'll have when a company operates it. OSA, GDPR, and probably other laws apply because it's open to the public.

Quoting boethius

Again, most regular people don't go cause harm far from where they live.

So a private individual who says something online in Northern Scotland, that someone in London takes issue with, will need to appear in London court?

The offence has occurred in Northern Scotland or in London?

As I said, the offence happens where the harm is suffered. So yes, the case can be brought in London because that's where the harm occurred, but in reality the defendant would usually appear remotely by video.

Quoting Jamal

As I said, the offence happens where the harm is suffered. So yes, the case can be brought in London because that's where the harm occurred, but in reality the defendant would usually appear remotely by video.

Well that does seem to me strange.

However, can you be sued right now in London for something you say on philosophy forum?

Or northern Scotland or anywhere in the UK if someone feels you've harmed them directly or indirectly through this philosophy forum?

Quoting boethius

However, can you be sued right now in London for something you say on philosophy forum?

Or northern Scotland or anywhere in the UK if someone feels you've harmed them directly or indirectly through this philosophy forum?

Yep!

Quoting Jamal

As I said, the offence happens where the harm is suffered.

Seems to me really preposterous and obviously the UK courts jettison this doctrine the moment someone sues a UK resident, for saying something while in their home in the UK ... from another country.

Quoting Jamal

Yep!

Well then that would be additional reason to incorporate in another jurisdiction, as you'd either appear at distance (and so at a disadvantage) or then need to move around even in the UK!

That's a wildly insane legal doctrine that makes it even easier to harass people due to their speech.

Quoting Jamal

As I said, the offence happens where the harm is suffered.

I've done some research quickly on this topic.

So first, whatever the result of the case elsewhere, your local district court would need to agree to enforce it and that can result in re-litigation.

However, all these kinds of cases are essentially defamation cases of clearly identifying and attacking a particular identifiable person, not political or artistic speech cases which is what I'm talking about.

At least in the EU you could not be sued elsewhere for political or artistic speech, a plaintiff would need to come to your district to submit such a claim.

"Where the harm occurred" is targeted harm, not the general harm to the whole world of just bad taste and bad ideas.

I'm pretty confident it would be the same in the UK.

Reply to boethius

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Online Safety Act. If we don't comply then the Office of Communications (Ofcom) can fine us (up to £18 million or 10% of revenue, whichever is higher) or take us down.

It has nothing to do with private individuals suing us because they believe they've been harmed.

Reply to Michael

Yeah, good point! How did I get dragged into talking about private lawsuits?

Quoting Michael

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Online Safety Act. If we don't comply then the Office of Communications (Ofcom) can fine us (up to £18 million or 10% of revenue, whichever is higher) or take us down.

This is one issue.

Who would be reporting you for not following this act is likely private individuals.

This would be in the broad category of consumer protection mechanisms that the government does but a private individual initiates.

There maybe many such mechanisms such as data protection and so on.

Quoting Michael

It has nothing to do with private individuals suing us because they believe they've been harmed.

For what a private individual can most easily sue you is service related. You provide a service, client receives that service, the client is unhappy with it and brings you to court. There can be all sorts of legal doctrines used to do so and all sorts of harms claimed. What is clear from the outset is that you're a business, you provide a service, one of your clients is dissatisfied so should probably have their day in court to test if you're business practices are reasonable and lawful (i.e. the threshold is low).

Reply to Jamal

Good answers all around. I had been wondering about some of the same things. I think @boethius raises an interesting general concern, but I don't see that his particular arguments are cogent.

Reply to boethius

I really don't understand what point you're trying to argue. The facts are that (a) if we are to continue to provide access to UK residents then we must comply with the Online Safety Act and that (b) it is better for a private limited company to risk being fined £18 million than for Jamal to risk personally being fined £18 million.

Quoting Leontiskos

but I don't see that his particular arguments are cogent.

Lawsuits don't need to be cogent to get started. That's my first issue.

When conducting business you can easily be sued as doing business creates contractual relationships and all sorts of obligations that people can easily argue you've broken.

So my first concern is can any lawsuit of any kind be dealt with?

Does it make sense to create the potential situation of needing to fly back to the UK, deal with court processes, potentially for years, for a business aiming to make 100 pounds a month?

Even if the case makes no sense and has no merit but a court process is needed to determine that.

That's stress test number 1.

Stress test number 2 would be someone taking particular fanatical displeasure with @Jamal and deciding to carry out some maximally disruptive series of complaints. Will @Jamal have time to deal with that and show in exhaustive detail that the alleged wrongdoing did not occur?

Stress test number 3 is someone wants the assets of the company and decides harassing litigation is the best way to make @Jamal just give up and hand over the business, too much hassle and stress even to deal with.

Stress test number 4 is a case of some actual grounds of breaking some law (perhaps a law we all disagree with but is a law and there is merit to the idea the law has been broken).

Quoting boethius

I've done some research quickly on this topic.

[...]

I'm pretty confident it would be the same in the UK.

You did some quick research about some other legal system and then assumed that it would also apply to the UK?

It seems like you are not a legal professional, and you are trying to offer @Jamal legal loopholes to evade UK laws, or else suggesting that he cede ownership of the site to some other individual in some other country. That seems worrisome, and I think you will find that loopholes are not so easy to be had. Further, your arguments don't make sense to me. Many of your suggestions actually seem counterproductive, such as your suggestion that Jamal should ditch what is apparently the UK equivalent of an LLC (limited liability company). As has been pointed out, this would saddle Jamal with more liability than not.

At some point you have to say, "My suggestions have been heard, they have not been heeded, and that's the end of it." Continuing to spin up long posts one after another is not helpful in the overall picture. It is also worth recognizing how much forethought has already gone into this decision on the part of Jamal and others.

Quoting Michael

I really don't understand what point you're trying to argue. The facts are that (a) if we are to continue to provide access to UK residents then we must comply with the Online Safety Act and that (b) it is better for a private limited company to risk being fined £18 million than for Jamal to risk personally being fined £18 million.

I'm not arguing against either point.

My point is those two problems can be solved in many different ways, in particular many different jurisdictions and several kinds of incorporations.

There's also many different organizational strategies to do whatever the goals are and also have available the resources to deal with foreseeable eventualities.

There will be pros and cons of any choice.

Quoting Leontiskos

You did some quick research about some other legal system and then assumed that it would also apply to the UK?

That would be additional reason in favour of those jurisdictions over the UK jurisdiction.

Quoting Leontiskos

It seems like you are not a legal professional, and you are trying to offer Jamal legal loopholes to evade UK laws, or else suggesting that he cede ownership of the site to some other individual in some other country.

That makes no sense.

Zero UK law preventing @Jamal from incorporating where he wants. Of course, many conditions may apply whatever the choice, but having a business in another jurisdiction is not a "loophole".

Quoting Leontiskos

That seems worrisome. Further, your arguments don't make sense to me. Make of your suggestions actually seem counterproductive, such as your suggestion that Jamal should ditch what is apparently the UK equivalent of an LLC (limited liability company). As has been pointed out, this would saddle Jamal with more liability than not.

What I've pointed out is that limited liability is not a guarantee, it's a privilege that can be challenged, so something @Jamal must take into consideration. One classic way to find out you have no liability protections is if the plaintiff can demonstrate you created the business primarily to escape liability.

The bankruptcy process does not end with declaring bankruptcy and then managers just brush off their hands and walk away. The managers of a business can then be sued personally by arguing their actions were not lawful or sufficiently reasonable to maintain their limited liability (reckless or negligent etc.).

Quoting Leontiskos

At some point you have to say, "My suggestions have been heard. They have not been heeded. And that's the end of it." Continuing to spin up long posts one after another is not helpful in the overall picture.

You must be new to philosophy forum, but you are very welcome here I'm sure.

Reply to Leontiskos

However to address the substance of your last point:

Quoting Leontiskos

And that's the end of it." Continuing to spin up long posts one after another is not helpful in the overall picture.

This is exactly the time in a business where lengthy analysis and deliberations are helpful.

@Jamal right now has a whole spectrum of choices available and a whole community to help implement whatever choice is made.

The best choice can really have a lot of benefits.

Any option is going to have pros and cons.

Simply elaborating a risk does not mean that risk is likely nor that risk is unacceptable.

The point is first to properly understand the risk, evaluate it's likelihood and impact, then see to what extent the risk can be mitigated, and finally to either accept the risk or discontinue whatever it is.

For example, base jumpers evaluate the risk of jumping to their doom, do what they can to mitigate it, and ultimately accept the remaining risk if they choose to jump. Each base jumper has some risk tolerance.

So all the risks I've spelled out may not happen, but seem to me can possibly happen so best to think about it long and hard, be sure of the facts and also how those risks can be reduced.

Reply to boethius

The Online Safety Act applies to all websites that are accessible in the UK, regardless of where the owners live/are incorporated or where the website is hosted.

Quoting boethius

What I've pointed out is that limited liability is not a guarantee, it's a privilege that can be challenged, so something Jamal must take into consideration. One classic way to find out you have no liability protections is if the plaintiff can demonstrate you created the business primarily to escape liability.

To escape an existing legal liability! Like I’m already facing a fine or a lawsuit and I form a company to escape the consequences. So you've misunderstood. It would not apply to TPF.

Quoting Michael

The Online Safety Act applies to all websites that are accessible in the UK, regardless of where the owners live/are incorporated or where the website is hosted.

But it's very different if you're incorporated outside the UK.

If you're incorporated outside the UK then it's far less likely for UK courts to simply fine you 19 million pounds, and there's no enforcement mechanism immediately available from UK courts to a business incorporated in another country. The UK can either then complain to you, complain to the country you're actually in, or then shutoff access to the website in the UK.

What the UK couldn't really do is demand foreign small businesses to show up in UK courts. Mostly they would just ignore as much as possible foreign small business websites, and if they can't for some reason then they would threaten to just turn off the website in the UK if the demands aren't satisfied.

If you're not breaking any laws where you actually incorporated then it's not really possible for UK courts to enforce any action against you (other than turn you off in the UK, an action they can enforce).

So being incorporated elsewhere would be a totally different relationship to UK law. Consumer protection mechanisms would not want to deal with complaints against foreign small business, whereas they maybe eager to deal with speech complaints of UK based small businesses to set the example.

Hence, the most impactful thing to reduce the entire spectrum of speech based legal actions, is to be in a country that has super excessive free speech laws and courts just don't hear those cases.

Quoting Jamal

To escape an existing legal liability! Like I’m already facing a fine or a lawsuit and I form a company to escape the consequences. So you've misunderstood. It would not apply to TPF.

That is for sure, zero question.

The argument that you've premeditatedly done that, knowing you would create immense liabilities without a reasonable business plan to handle those liabilities, is an argument a plaintiff can make and a judge can listen to, among many other arguments, sound or unsound.

UK courts may want to make an example of you that you can't just make a small company, no intention to grow a business, to do what you were doing before on your personal liability, simply to create immense damages and then walk away.

It wouldn't bother the business community if you aren't making any money and clearly aren't doing business. Plaintiff attorneys can be all like "is @Jamal like really an entrepreneur? Really?

But even if you win the argument, it's still a whole process to be in court, defending yourself, and engage with these kinds of arguments. Which is what happens in court, plaintiff attorneys can make dozens of spurious arguments to force you to deconstruct each one only to eventually get to an argument that actually matters, which you're too exhausted to deal with precisely well enough to win that argument.

A judge won't make your case for you as a business (what a judge may try to do if you're a private individual).

If you're representing yourself you're at a massive disadvantage.

Reply to boethius

Pure fantasy.

Quoting Jamal

Pure fantasy.

If you have some reason to believe you can never be brought to court, that would be one thing. Royal immunity for example.

However, the starting assumption for any business is that litigation can and will occur and so how to minimize the risk and how to deal with it.

Playing whack-a-mole trying to prove each risk scenario I describe can't possibly happen is not a reasonable business planning methodology.

You should sit down and list all the litigation risks you can think of and evaluate the probability of each occurring within a 5 year time span. Feel free to ignore what I consider risks needing consideration, make your own list and your own calculations.

Risk is likelihood multiplied by impact.

So extreme scenarios are less likely but higher impact which is why they need to be considered, if they can happen.

Some freak gust of wind maybe unlikely but could kill one of our dear base jumpers, so they should consider carefully the weather patterns.

Now if you do that exercise and the risk (the entire spectrum of litigation risk) is below your threshold of risk tolerance, then you can entertain the idea of lowering the risk even more but it's not a big issue.

What you're discussing is creating a structure that can be far more easily used to bring you to court (you won't have any special leeway compared to any businessman if you want to do business; there's not "100 pounds a month" business law that stipulates you don't have to deal with things other businessmen have to deal with). Even one court process can take years to resolve, be immensely stressful and costly (even just to get to court if you don't live close by!).

My main point here is before flipping that switch you should really make sober reflection and analysis.

What are the litigation risks? How likely are they to happen? Can you deal with them if they do happen?

At the moment you seem to be engaged in magical thinking that if you're just good faith (from your own perspective) and follow a short list of rules based on your own understanding of them, then you can't be sued.

Reply to Jamal

And what you for certain shouldn't believe is that by making a limited liability business to provide a forum service to forum clients, that you are reducing your risk.

You are greatly expanding it, with essentially no benefits from my point of view.

I think to remedy some confusion here, it should be stated that since Jamal is a citizen of the UK, the Online Safety Act (rather it's potential legal penalties) in fact applies to him personally.

If he were not a citizen of the UK, all the UK authorities could do is block his website from being visited (served ie. "made accessible") by any UK telecommunications provider. He both acknowledges as a UK citizen he could be liable and further acknowledges that regardless of the prior fact, this website is desired to be accessible for those in the UK, of which a substantial amount of posters hail from.

Otherwise, it would be like if I was from Namibia, Africa and made a website in my country about African food. If some person from the UK who has African heritage wanted to visit my site but could not without requiring a citizen of another country to accept a different country's rules, laws, and systems to simply visit and learn about one's own heritage, that could be woven as a form of illegally depriving a citizen of widely-established rights of cultural heritage.

Quoting Jamal

Pure fantasy.

Yep.

Incidentally, this is a good test case for why I favor posting limitations (e.g. one cannot post twice in X amount of time, or something like that).

You wrote a Reply to short post of 33 words, and received a much a much Reply to longer response of 224 words 5 minutes later. Then you wrote a Reply to two word post, and received Reply to a post of 291 words 10 minutes later. Of those two posts, @boethius is averaging 34 words a minute and posting constantly (including short after-thought posts). In my opinion this sort of thing is what leads to low quality discussions, and this case does not seem to be an exception.

Reply to Leontiskos

@boethius is just trying to look out for the best interest of @Jamal, and as a result, all of us. Misguided or not. Why so authoritarian all of a sudden? Are you trying to emulate someone? :chin:

I thought you were a free spirit. Making web extensions and CSS modifications and what not. This is highly uncharacteristic of you. I understand the stakes (and emotions in general) are high, but for goodness sake my friend, let us not forget who we are and what we stand for. :smile:

Quoting Outlander

boethius is just trying to look out for the best interest of Jamal, and as a result, all of us. Misguided or not. Why so authoritarian all of a sudden? Are you trying to emulate someone? :chin:

And maybe the current plan is the best one, if we considered other plans there would be negatives in those too.

For example, my plan of get @Benkei to legally administrate in his jurisdiction, may run into the little problem of @Benkei never in a million years ever agreeing to that.

However, it's only in elaborating different plans, subjecting them to critical scrutiny, that we can be somewhat confident what the best plan is.

There's also plan don't-incorporate.

The reason @Jamal needed a structure to do contracting work is that it greatly simplifies other businesses hiring his services and transferring him the money.

In this case, if we're talking about really small amounts, then it should be seriously considered to just keep things private property, hobby level activity, no services, no clients, no trade registry duties and liabilities.

If a structure is to be made, I would seriously recommend it's because there's some plan to bring in significant funds to achieve more goals.

So that's the basic framework I'd propose as a starting point of analysis.

I'm also not drawing any conclusions for @Jamal here, as his risk tolerance could anyways be super high as well as his willingness to fly back to the UK anytime to deal with whatever it is. Likewise, the negatives in the viable alternative plans could be deal breakers whereas dealing with UK litigation is not. Some analysis is required to be confident about any conclusion.

Reply to Outlander

People with too much time on their hands "looking out for the best interests of others" cause a great deal of problems in the world. Two pages of ill-informed posts on a tangential topic seems plenty sufficient here. And it would not be "authoritarian" to encourage people to think a bit before posting. Pointlessly and endlessly fatiguing moderators is not something that should be encouraged.

Giving advice unasked is rude. Doing it over and over for two pages is highly objectionable.

It sounds to me as if Jamal and others have thought through these problems much more thoroughly and with much more research than @boethius has:

Quoting Leontiskos

It is also worth recognizing how much forethought has already gone into this decision on the part of Jamal and others.

I myself had thought about inquiring about this issue, but I abstained because it is not my place. Now that it has taken place I can say with confidence that the people who made the decision did so responsibly, namely by carrying out the requisite research and planning. This is not surprising given the commitment they have to the website.

@Jamal summed it up aptly:

Quoting Jamal

Rather than an argument against forming a UK company, this seems to be an argument against existing at all.

The logical conclusion of someone who endlessly points to fantastical risks and counterfactuals is that one should not have a forum at all.

Quoting Leontiskos

People with too much time on their hands "looking out for the best interests of others" cause a great deal of problems in the world.

Lots of people doing lots of things cause vast amounts of problems, equally. Do you really know for certain what is the cause of every great suffering? No, just what you're told (or the immediate observable factors that are usually but symptoms of true causes). I understand your sentiment those who proclaim to care about others enough to speak out about what's right or "best" are at the end of the day only human beings, and human beings are deceptive and generally predictable as far as being self-serving and generally untrustworthy. That doesn't mean those who keep to themselves and who don't actively try to offer suggestions to improve the world are somehow immune or the opposite. The statement quoted is just not very helpful. It doesn't forward any argument nor does it paint the person you're talking about in a non-favorable light. Some might call this... wait for it... "ill-informed!" :razz:

Furthermore, what makes you think someone who has access to an Internet-connected device and can type out a reply in 20-30 seconds a few times in a row has "too much time on their hands?" Typing "long" posts is literally like breathing to some intelligent folk. Even if it may take you a while to read it (or like I suspect may be possible, having to re-read it only to get frustrated to no avail of understanding it). Perhaps they've earned their free time.

Quoting Leontiskos

Two pages of ill-informed posts on a tangential topic seems plenty sufficient here.

There's lots of valuable and generally correct information as far legal philosophy he brought up, whether or not it applies to @Jamal's specific situation or not. This is considered noble effort. Relevant discussion. Do you think he's purposely giving bad information so as to sabotage TPF for some hidden or unknown agenda? If not, why concern yourself with a discussion between two people either one of the involved parties could have (and probably would have preferred) privately messaged?

It just seems odd to me, as if you're trying to "shut down" a conversation after the two relevant parties basically agreed it to have already been over.

Quoting Leontiskos

And it would not be "authoritarian" to encourage people to think a bit before posting. Pointlessly and endlessly fatiguing moderators is not something that should be encouraged.

With all due respect, the person you're criticizing seems to be on at least an equal level of communication and understanding of not only logic but real world knowledge as yourself. And that's being quite generous in your favor.

Quoting Leontiskos

Giving advice unasked is rude.

It is not the lowest form of expression, opinion, or "advice", if the person sees a danger, whether real or not (and it many places, it is), and as an act of compassion and concern expresses why he thinks so to someone who he wishes to avoid said danger. This is basic human empathy. Literally the opposite of rudeness. Concern for fellow man is the cornerstone of all civilized society. Especially in a purposefully pinned thread that the site owner specifically made to "get feedback" from other posters from.

What country are you from that makes all the above disappear in favor of blind following toward a total stranger who just so happens to be in charge? I seriously need to know.

Quoting Leontiskos

Doing it over and over for two pages is highly objectionable.

Bruh. It's called a conversation. One makes a concern. The person responds to the concern. And the person responds in turn. It goes back and forth constituting a free exchange of ideas and opinion. If you were desired as a moderator, you'd have been asked already. End of watch bro. Time to live life as a normal civilian/poster. Come on, you can do it. :smile:

Quoting Outlander

It just seems odd to me, as if you're trying to "shut down" a conversation after the two relevant parties basically agreed it to have already been over.

Mmmk, Outlander. :roll:

Quoting Outlander

What country are you from that makes all the above disappear in favor of blind following toward a total stranger who just so happens to be in charge? I seriously need to know.

If you seriously needed to know you could have tried exerting an ounce of research effort by pulling up my bio. @Jamal is not "a total stranger who just so happens to be in charge." He is the guy who has dedicated countless hours and lots of money to TPF, and has spent over a year researching a cutting edge, new platform which will be even more expensive. It's nothing short of a miracle that there exist people like Jamal to run sites like this.

I've never said that objections are impermissible, but there really is such a thing as too much.

Reply to Leontiskos

Thanks, Leon, I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Questions and objections are very welcome—they help me publicly explain, for the benefit of other members who might be wondering the same things, what's been going on and the reasoning behind it.

But if @boethius was, as @Outlander said, "just trying to look out for the best interest of Jamal, and as a result, all of us," you have to wonder why he responded to every correction with an evasion such as "Well the main point is that..." Perhaps he got carried away. In the process he has damaged the thread and forced me to spend 7 or 8 hours researching and writing about the law, all to satisfy what appears to be idle fear-mongering from a single outlandishly prolific member. This is destructive, not constructive.

But I don't want to attack anyone; I just want to make it clear that this thread is not a platform for anyone to come along and flood it with runaway speculation. I want to keep space for genuine questions from everyone else.

So please, @boethius, no more. You've had your say, to put it mildly.

Lol, I thought I would check @boethius's new posts and came upon this thread.

I got a lot more out of your anarchism/communism discussions which seemed much better rooted in actual historical precedent, backed up by the source material which I further explored. It seems your content has veered far from the vigorous philosophical subject matter I first came to respect you for when joining this forum.

Maybe all these what ifs are true to your life as @Jamal indicated but I don't see what these extremely idiosyncratic scenarios have to do with the 'price of fish' (to use a British colloquialism) here.

I understand if someone, for instance, suffers a violent attack they may have much more awareness about threats in the future. It is whether the vigilance is rational or not. If it becomes hyper-vigilance where they were afraid to leave the house then that is not helpful, which seems akin to these extreme hypotheticals you are posing here.

From your postulating, this forum does not seem any different from other businesses in the UK, and all businesses in the UK should shutdown immediately to pour over these possible risks.

Of course nothing is 100% and any other company would be open to the risks of being sued you are proposing here.

Quoting Jamal

But if boethius was, as @Outlander said, "just trying to look out for the best interest of Jamal, and as a result, all of us," you have to wonder why he responded to every correction with an evasion such as "Well the main point is that..."

There's zero evasion, the idea you could start a business and cannot ever be summoned to court is absurd, for any business. Moreso for a business that does anything remotely controversial in addition to hurting specific people's feelings (which, at least from my perspective, some banned members seem to have had their feelings hurt).

Risk analysis starts with considering extreme scenarios and then working your way down to the mundane.

It will be your business. If you don't want believe anything extreme could possibly happen, such as some government official in the UK reading something published/hosted by your business and being like "we need to put an end to this," then ok don't believe that could possibly happen.

The reason I propose that as a risk worth considering is because there's a pathway available to you at the moment that would reduce all categories of speech-litigation risk, from the smallest to the most extreme, which is incorporate in a place with far more clear and secure freedom of speech laws. UK may still take issue, but they can't force a foreign business to do something in a foreign country without that also being the law in that foreign country (they also know foreign countries don't like that, same as no UK judge wants to be told what to do by some foreign judge according to laws that don't exist in the UK, say sharia law, so the reticence to even try to compel a foreign company to do something is extremely high).

However, if you're response is "that's fantasy, no government official has ever taken issue with things people say online and then gone about abusing power to suppress that speech or as retaliation," well then ok, sure, but there's still all the other categories of litigation risk.

As I say, make your own risk scenarios and assign your own likelihood and impact numbers to them.

Some scenarios (disgruntled ex-forum client of your forum business) I'm not saying are existential, just a pain in the ass that you may need to deal with and other strategies available avoid creating service-client legal relationships.

The purpose of considering this category of risk is that you may need to deal with such a scenario that consumes a lot of your time, all the money, and a lot more, you've brought in through the service equivalent of donations, and completely erases all the benefits and peace of mind you thought the business would create for you. Now if you sit down and think about this scenario and conclude the risk of this happening is 20% ... ok, is that a risk you're willing to take?

And so on for other risks, all the scenarios I propose have some likelihood of actually happening.

As with all risk analysis, there is a threshold below which the additional risk is just added noise to your daily risk of being just being alive; just another of many improbable disasters that could befall you at any moment from being struck by lightening to being in a plane crash. Risk is non-actionable when it approaches this "improbable disaster noise".

Risk that requires further analysis is anything above this "background risk noise".

Doesn't mean anything has to be done about the risk but only further analysis can provide some reason to do nothing. To take base jumping, once the weather is such that there is a "freak gust" risk that could be lethal, maybe our base jumper is still going to jump but it obviously depends on "how likely": 1 in a 1000 is way higher than the otherwise risk of death that day, but perhaps still far below the base jumpers risk tolerance, but let's say some numbers guy comes up with 1 in 10 ... obviously a different situation and anyone who jumps would be considered to have a death wish, playing Russian roulette for all intents and purposes.

In terms of dealing with the risk, even super mundane legal harassment by an ex-member that has zero merit and can't possibly win but a judge is willing to give them their day in court to hold you accountable, you still have to show up in court and deconstruct even spurious arguments.

There's a whole spectrum of risk, lot's of risk categories, the "go-no-go" decision should be based on some rational evaluation of all the risks and summing them over a reasonable period of time before a choice to renew, handoff or abandon naturally re-emerges, say 5 years, and that total risk below your risk tolerance.

Now, exactly what number in terms of likelihood and impact will be somewhat subjective. Take our base jumpers, they may agree there's wind, may agree gusts to happen, but one may "feel" the weather is simply calm enough that a freak gust would be 1 in a million, so jumps, and another feel it's more like 1 in a hundred and so doesn't jump.

The rational framework for making the decision is nevertheless the same for each jumper.

So in your case, you should make a spreadsheet with the different categories of litigation and compliance risk, and punch in numbers of likelihood over 5 years and then impact (basically money required to deal with the eventuality). The sum of all these values will be some expected value of the decision.

From a business planning perspective, what really bothers me is that no actual benefits have been described. You could change technology, comply with the laws, without making a business and creating any of these client-service litigation risks.

So, the expected value in this case is always negative. Normally, for a business, or then new business project, to be a good idea you go through this exercise about the risk and then go through the same exercise about the benefits. Analytical milestone 1 is the expected value of the benefits far outweighing the expected value of the risks.

To take our party management corporation for example, all the risks of what can befall wild party goers (and the impact on the bottom line) can be analyzed in the above way, but then also all the benefits of people paying for the party, networking with celebrities that absolutely need to be at your parties, legal consenting sexual opportunities as the party maestro everyone loves and so on.

However, if you go through all the costs and risks and the expected value of costs exceeds the expected value of the benefits, then the decision cannot be rational.

Analytical milestone 2 is then considering the stochastic nature of reality and that even if the expected risk-benefit is positive there is still the possibility of catastrophic failure, and that's where the risk tolerance comes in.

Analytical milestone 3 is then considering the ways to lower the risks even further and amplify the benefits.

Quoting boethius

You could change technology, comply with the laws, without making a business and creating any of these client-service litigation risks.

You keep repeating the falsehood that operating as a company creates new risks. TPF is already a service, and I'm already a UK citizen. Creating the company will make no difference to risks or user rights. The only thing it will do is protect me personally (and make it a little bit more convenient to operate in some other ways).

I was serious when I said we've had enough of your posts in this discussion. You've had your say, I've taken your objections seriously, now stop.

Can I ask why you have gone the subscription and premium forum software route rather than free and open source?

Being honest the choices I read above about Discourse being 'slick' to paraphrase seemed rather trite.

I am a wholeheartedly biased open source advocate.

Also biased in that I much preferred forums from the early naughties in my formative years of the internet when phpbb was top dog. I still prefer that forum software in this day and age of emojis, reaction scores, and other social media inspired forums with added content and phpbb is still an updated project.

Not saying that will sway you just that is what I prefer. I have come to enjoy the ragtag motley crew especially our raucous and polarising Uncle Boethius so will go to whichever y'all go most likely just that I prefer clean and simple forums like phpbb. For the subject matter which is about level headed rational discussion I don't see why you have to be 'trendy' and go with the most flashy forum software of the moment with its related costs.

Quoting unimportant

Can I ask why you have gone the subscription and premium forum software route rather than free and open source?

Discourse is 100% free and open source. I'm just using it in the incarnation hosted by Discourse themselves. By paying them we keep a high quality open source project going. Plus I can move the site to my own server any time I want without even telling them (I just take a backup, available in admin).

So basically we're paying for top-class hosting and maintenance, and we get to take the software and data away with us any time we want.

I opted to do it this way for the reasons I explained. High performance and reliability without any server maintenance or performance enhancement responsibilities.

Reply to Jamal I see. Thanks for explaining. I had never looked into it tbh. I know a lot of forums use discourse these days and simply have not had an interest since it is not the old school aesthetic I like.

I have been toying with the idea of making a forum or two myself for a while - nothing to do with philosophy - and I quickly decided I would choose phpbb if I ever use one.

I too have been a coder for some years, though haven't done it in a couple of years now. Not coding directly but adjacent skills of admin of server running and command line stuff which I also enjoy.

Reply to unimportant

Each to their own. I have always detested the old bulletin board design.

Reply to Jamal Lol, then we have nothing more to discuss on this matter.

Reply to unimportant

Actually though, it's not in fact a matter of "each to their own", since the old design is objectively bad, with overly long column widths for text being one of the worst aspects.

EDIT: I mean line lengths

Reply to Jamal Well, respectfully, it is because I could pick a host of things I dislike about current forums - the bloating and infinite scroll, the overly 'busy' design and litany of options which do little, imho, to improve the experience. Maybe improve the addictive nature, like with the social media sites they are based on, but do not add anything positive over a simple text forum.

I opt for things like command line email clients though which is not most people's cup of tea so not expecting to win anyone over.

Reply to unimportant

Modern forums are great, and command line tools are great. Just yesterday I installed a dictionary and thesaurus on my computer which I can look up in the terminal. For example...

$ dict metempsychosis 

Quoting unimportant

infinite scroll

Ooh, this. So much this. It's especially impactful if you browse on an Internet connection that is slow or throttled. As a web developer myself it's just so frustrating as to wonder what on Earth content is being transferred that would have just been easier to send straightforward to the browser.

What about IE6 or people who disable Javascript for security reasons, for example? I'd almost think they're purposely making "progress" bad so people get sick of it and return to simpler times. Yes, that's a pleasing thought for anachronistic persons like us to hold, outnumbered and out-voiced as we are. We'll be proven right to the world someday. Someday... :starstruck:

Edit: I think it has something to do with data archiving, to be honest. Or if you're a bit "creative-minded" some agenda in relation to such. Makes it harder to web scrape. You actually have to know what you're doing and simulate a JSON AJAX request, often using a token that is difficult to obtain by the most popular HTML scraping methods.

Reply to Outlander Reply to unimportant

Read this discussion about infinite scroll:

https://meta.discourse.org/t/infinite-scrolling-is-a-total-pain/225532

A small minority of loudly opinionated people love to hate it but their reasoning rarely withstands scrutiny.

Quoting Outlander

We'll be proven right to the world someday. Someday... :starstruck:

Don't stop believing Outlander :strong:

Quoting Jamal

You keep repeating the falsehood that operating as a company creates new risks.

Way more risks.

As a UK business you can for sure be sued in the district your business in incorporated. As we've been debating, being sued in some random UK district is pretty special circumstances and then to enforce that ruling on you as a person would anyways require coming to the district where you actually live and have assets and enforce that ruling that way.

Being a UK citizen is not equivalent to having a business.

Furthermore, the fact that you can be sued and someone can argue that you're providing a service for clients, means that's a hurdle they need to overcome. A judge could easily throw out such a case when he or she learns that you aren't a business, you don't make promises, and philosophy is your hobby that you do for your own betterment and the betterment of mankind.

The "it's actually a service" argument usually requires some actual tangible benefit you would normally get from a company, like shoe shining.

"Arguing with people", as we are doing right now, you certainly can get from a company but you can also get in pretty much every aspect of private life from your wild ass parties I've never been invited too, on the street, in the bar, with family at Christmas, with strangers on a train; all of which aren't paid services and when you're arguing with a company it's likely also not the intended service you paid for.

So there's a good chance if anyone did sue you right now a judge would just throw the case out. Every hurdle to a court hearing is both additional protection and disincentive to actually suing you, as there's all these problems to solve.

Likewise, any sort of consumer protection mechanism, if someone complained right now and they don't have a business number and they're trying to convince some consumer protection bureaucrat that "actually he's a philosophy business selling arguing with him and others services", their reaction will most likely be considerably less than enthusiastic.

As soon as you're a business it goes without saying you provide a service, as that's what businesses do. No hurdle to starting the complaint process: you have a business ID, brand, address of incorporation, clear as day where you are liable. If your service is providing philosophy somehow then that's your service, same rules apply as providing any other service.

And maybe step back and consider the consistency here.

Every extreme scenario I describe you dismiss offhand, zero engagement, and yet the primary motivation to make a business is to avoid a 19 million pound liability? An extreme scenario that can actually be easily dismissed as those levels of fines are for multi national corporations that actually have 19 million pounds lying around, not micro-businesses. However, what people may do if they get emotional enough and can really do those things (like start consumer protection mechanisms of one kind of another) is 100% a risk that cannot be dismissed.

To further support your decision to mitigate this 19 million pound fine risk you propose a spurious argument that you can potentially be sued right now as a business, even though you are clearly not a business, and so you may as well be a business!!

Now, I've described plenty of spurious arguments that you dismiss offhand!!

However, your spurious argument that you're already a business is unlikely to ever actually happen. Judges do not view themselves as having the time to bring private citizens to court to have them account for the actions of a business that clearly doesn't exist. It must be very clear that you are in fact operating as an illegal business (getting money to shine my shoes) for this argument to apply.

Yes, people can contribute to the upkeep around here out of the goodness of their heart: but that does not make them special and doesn't change the relationship in any substantive way, and, more importantly, you clearly don't aim to profit but are clearly just helping out your fellow philosophy hobbyists and a little help your way is appreciated. Super clear as day non-formal hobby club of some sort that people have a right to do based on the freedom of association.

As soon as you're a business, you can easily be brought to court to answer to spurious arguments. Private citizens must be protected from predatory business and therefore judges must try to afford private citizens every opportunity to hold their services to account and have their day in court. On that day it can become clear that the matter is really, really, really dumb, but to get to that clarifying moment can be reall expensive.

For those interested, once you've gone through the steps of net-present-value analysis and something seems reasonable to do, the next analytical steps are taking into account things like opportunity-costs, depreciation of assets, insurance policy analysis (of the bad things that can happen, is it already insured, is it a net-present value to insure against it; would insurance resist such a claim, to what extent can they do so and can that be dealt with, would successful insurance effectively equalize the costs or only somewhat as there would be reputational damages and other non-insurables anyways involved, etc.), various discount and interest rates, and a bunch of accounting stuff I don't even know how to do.

@boethius I love you. You're a rare breed. But the man has made his decision. Any benefit (or detriment and consequence) of his decision is now his and his alone to own. Your efforts are, as always, truly appreciated, if not only by myself. :100:

Let us move onto greener pastures, shall we? :smile:

Quoting Outlander

Let us move onto greener pastures, shall we? :smile:

Let's hope that the admin at the new site doesn't somehow forget to approve his registration. :wink:

Quoting Outlander

boethius I love you. You're a rare breed.

I love you too Outlander <3

Quoting Outlander

Any benefit (or detriment and consequence) of his decision is now his and his alone to own.

That maybe, but the point of risk analysis is also to have a plan to deal with things, so they don't catch you off guard.

For example, if @Jamal sees to it to always be able to answer (in terms of resources and time) a summons in some reasonable amount of time, by flying back to the jurisdiction his business is incorporated, that would already be a big risk mitigating factor. But would require pro-active planning for it on @Jamal's part such as not taking engagements that would make it impossible to answer a summons.

Likewise all the risk categories can be planned for and mitigated.

Just because base jumpers conclude that "probably" no one will crash, that does not mean the event shouldn't be planned for so as to potentially save their life if they didn't die on impact.

The mitigation strategy for being harassed by a government official could be just immediately close up shop, for example, or then make as much noise as possible and become super famous!

So even if someone's mind is made up and not affected by new information (such as how to professionally go about making business planning decisions), the analysis is still critical to be sure to keep the risks as low as possible and have some basic plan of what to do if they happen.

Quoting Jamal

Let's hope that the admin at the new site doesn't somehow forget to approve his registration. :wink:

Every single scenario I described can happen to you.

And as you say yourself, as soon as you are faced with actual liability then you are stuck in the UK jurisdiction, can't move, can't just closeup shop and walk away. The start of one lawsuit, no matter how spurious, could commit you to dealing with UK jurisdiction, all choices (that you have right now) removed from you, for years. That's high impact, regardless of the eventual result! so the likelihood does not have to be very high to warrant taking such a risk seriously.

Quoting Outlander

So much this.

Right on. Time for a 'hard fork'? :yum: would probably be a community of 2.

Quoting Jamal

Read this discussion about infinite scroll

The time it took to load that link is case in point lol. Discourse takes like 20+ seconds for me to load a page. Phpbb very quick.

It is like the latest windows versions require greater and greater hardware requirements in the name of 'progress' when I can run linux just fine on cast off machines from family members from a decade or more ago.

I don't care what people say about infinite scroll, won't change my mind. Pagination worked perfect and cannot envision a case where infinite scroll would be better since I value conserving resources and that is the opposite "load everything to get to the part you want in a thread" rather than jump to specific page. If I am wrong, don't care, don't like it!

EDIT: Ok I did read the thread. I see a message claims that 'posts are loaded in and out while scrolling just the same as with pagination'.

Maybe true but I just prefer the old style even if performance is 1:1 the same, just because that is what I first learned and liked. Don't care if it is nostalgia or what. I hate social media too maybe because it wasn't around when I was young but I think I would dislike the vapid nature of it even if I was young when it was already established.

I have always despised 'booze culture' and that has been around for a long time before I was born.

Quoting unimportant

Discourse takes like 20+ seconds for me to load a page

So when you went to that link I sent you, it took 20 seconds? I find that hard to believe. If so, I think your experience is unusual.

Quoting unimportant

I don't care what people say about infinite scroll, won't change my mind.

I see.

Quoting unimportant

EDIT: Ok I did read the thread. I see a message claims that 'posts are loaded in and out while scrolling just the same as with pagination'.

Maybe true but I just prefer the old style even if performance is 1:1 the same, just because that is what I first learned and liked.

Ok.

I think there's a confusion in many of the criticisms of Discourse. The software itself actually isn't resource-intensive for the client, i.e., in the browser when visiting, navigating within and using a Discourse forum (all else being equal); what is more challenging is hosting it properly, because it needs a lot of memory. If people have had the experience of slow Discourse forums this is often a server issue. That won't be an issue for a site hosted on discourse.org, so TPF will run well.

EDIT: But the first load can be slow, I grant you. It's always fast after that.

Quoting Jamal

A small minority of [s]loudly opinionated[/s] frustrated people love to hate it but their reasoning rarely withstands scrutiny.

All scientific innovation (read that again, EVERY single thing around you that isn't a rock attached to a stick) was created by a small minority. This in and of itself doesn't seem to be very useful in any intellectual or logical context of an opinion on the topic, particularly one about scientific or technological development and related feedback.

People who become frustrated who don't express their frustrations are the leading cause of mental illness, violence, and more. This is scientific fact. They don't "love to hate" they simply have no choice but to express frustration (whether warranted or easily prevented or not) with something that happens to be, at the time, well, frustrating. I feel that is fairly self-evident. You never get angry? We all know you do. Speaking of which, that doorman (or lobby person) at your (possibly former) apartment better be alive. I recall a distinct level of frustration (loudly opinionated—albeit solicited—remarks) in regards to him. Besides. Frustration leads to reconsideration of choice and action, which in of itself (reconsideration of past habits) is the eventual driving factor responsible for every great invention or innovation not discovered haphazardly.

Just as easily what is responsible for how the world is today: a combination of ingrained need to conform meets hedonic treadmill

But all that aside. Do you have a link to a (popular/live/"actual") forum that uses Discourse? For some reason the meta links on the site itself seem to be "low-fi" or not the full featured version shown on the main site.

Is there simply no pagination at all? I'm curious how that would work with a long discussion with say several hundred posts. Presumably you'd click a new topic and end up at the first post. There's surely some "jump to most recent post" or effective pagination link, yes?

It just seems kind of nice for those with analytical minds who like to study certain posts from varying users the ability to control a certain "sphere" of 10-20 posts at a time (and then navigate to them after viewing the most recent post) and mentally recall "Ok, I was on page X" as opposed to "I last left off reading at 'that guy with the zombie baby as an avatar's post", for example.

Not a big deal. All benefit comes at a cost. Naturally. I'm sure a few lone people might prefer traditional pagination is all. No fuss, just a view I'm sure others might hold. :smile:

Reply to Outlander

So I'm responsible for mental illness now? :wink:

Quoting Outlander

Is there simply no pagination at all?

I think that's right, yes.

Quoting Outlander

I'm curious how that would work with a long discussion with say several hundred posts. Presumably you'd click a new topic and end up at the first post. There's surely some "jump to most recent post" or effective pagination link, yes?

There's lots of in-discussion navigation conveniences, and you're taken to the last post you read, just like here. But why don't you go and have a look? Here's the meta.discourse.org topics ordered by number of replies descending:

https://meta.discourse.org/latest?ascending=false&order=posts

Now don't judge it too quickly. It'll take some getting used to for an old codger like you.

Quoting Jamal

But why don't you go and have a look?

I will, thanks. I'll even update my browser for you.

(Interesting because I do fairly often, it can't be more than a few months since I got the latest version, and yet, this is what I see: https://i.imgur.com/bvrNCnX.jpeg -- I am on Firefox 115.29, interesting this is the "extended support release" version since I am on Windows 7, which I just noticed Google Chrome literally refuses to offer any form of update for Windows 7, instead requiring a minimum of Windows 10 [I'd have to jump a full 3 numbers ahead] alas this is the view I am stuck with, and perhaps may be the same for others? Not sure)

It's not a big deal at all. I don't need colors or images. Certainly not to dissuade your welcomed newfound enthusiasm for this forum by petty (albeit genuinely observed) observations that apply to very few, as you say, after all. :smile:

Reply to Outlander

Ah. Windows 7 is old so you can't run up-to-date browsers. ChatGPT told me "Use Firefox ESR. It’s the last modern browser that still supports Windows 7."

Reply to Jamal

I checked on my phone. It has a nice, compact yet usable "floating" pagination feature on the bottom right of the screen. Some might even call that overkill as far as pagination design. :razz:

Reply to Outlander

Yeah, just had a look. Works quite nicely on the phone. That timeline thing sticks to the right of the posts on a pc, rather than floating.

Reply to Jamal

One of the things I really like about PlushForums is that when I click on a discussion it takes me to the last comment I viewed, and not just the first/last page.

Does Discourse do that?

Quoting Michael

One of the things I really like about PlushForums is that when I click on a discussion it takes me to the last comment I viewed, and not just the first/last page.

Does Discourse do that?

Yes.

Reply to boethius I'm going to go out on a limb and predict the regulators will never come over and try to curb stomp our lemonade stand into the ground, nor will they seize our data and read your musings one day and herald you as a prophet for having tried to save us from ourselves.

At this point you talk to yourself, agreeing with your wisdom, while everyone else wonders why.

If you're sure it's pearls before swine, just accept our stubborn moroness.

Quoting Hanover

?boethius I'm going to go out on a limb and predict the regulators will never come over and try to curb stomp our lemonade stand into the ground, nor will they seize our data and read your musings one day and herald you as a prophet for having tried to save us from ourselves.

Seems to me honestly a cavalier attitude. A lot of controversial things are said on the forum, though maybe the idea is that will change.

From my perspective, UK doesn't seem a bastion of free speech right now, and the practical differences for incorporating somewhere else is very low.

Quoting Hanover

At this point you talk to yourself, agreeing with your wisdom, while everyone else wonders why.

The essential part is that it is wisdom, but I am talking with the people responding to me. For example, I'm talking with you right now.

Quoting Hanover

If you're sure it's pearls before swine, just accept our stubborn moroness.

What I am describing is the most basic business advice possible, traditionally called "sober deliberation", but probably described most succinctly and famously (at least in business circles) by Jeff Bezos writing to his shareholders that you can read directly on the SEC website:

Quoting To Amazon Shareholders, Jeff Bezos, SEC

Some decisions are consequential and irreversible or nearly irreversible – one-way doors – and these decisions must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation. If you walk through and don’t like what you see on the other side, you can’t get back to where you were before. We can call these Type 1 decisions.

Usually his letter is quoted for what he has to say about Type 2 decisions, that are reversible, as his main point is that a large organizations has a tendency to start treating every decision as Type one irreversible decisions. Why that is the usual purpose of the reference is because it is not controversial in the business community that you may want to put some thought into Type 1 decisions.

@Jamal, faced with a decision affecting all members of our community (but at least with the support of most, so there's that), is basically of the attitude "Jeff Bazos is full of shit and anyone who proposes an irreversible decision, like the jurisdiction of incorporation and type of incorporation, 'must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation' is a business moron that we should all ignore, to use the words of our most erudite and sharpest philosopher."

Quoting boethius

Seems to me honestly a cavalier attitude.

Living on the edge, flying by the seat in my pants, relying upon the kindness of strangers.

Quoting Hanover

Living on the edge, flying by the seat in my pants, relying upon the kindness of strangers.

Absolutely boethius approved.

But are you managing a limited liability company that affects other people's interests who entrust you with their philosophy-client needs?

Quoting boethius

But are you managing a limited liability company that affects other people's interests who entrust you with their philosophy-client needs?

Psst. It's been stated by the ultimate authority here that this particular line of topic needs to take a hard backseat, if you will. At least for some time. :smile:

Perhaps discuss in the Shoutbox, featuring my glorious ready-made meal selection, or consider engaging in a private conversation via the in-forum utilities.

Quoting boethius

faced with a decision affecting all members of our community (but at least with the support of most, so there's that), is basically of the attitude "Jeff Bazos is full of shit and anyone who proposes an irreversible decision, like the jurisdiction of incorporation and type of incorporation, 'must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation' is a business moron that we should all ignore

The verdict seems to be, not that the good sir is unaware of possibility of risks, but that his "concern" for such vary significantly from your own. Whether this is due to ignorance or a simple differing view of what is important in life, respecting the will of the man in question, the legal aspect of this topic is no longer our concern. Nor is it desired to be spoken of furthermore. If you're a "I told you so" person, well, perhaps you'll get your moment of glory. Or, perhaps everything will be just fine. Either way, sounds like smooth sailing ahead. :cool:

Quoting Outlander

Psst. It's been stated by the ultimate authority here that this particular line of topic needs to take a hard backseat, if you will. At least for some time.

If people just stopped citing me I'd stop citing what they have to say about their citations of me and in what appears to me as a frolicking back and forth, ebb and flow of legitimate discourse.

Quoting Outlander

The verdict seems to be, not that the good sir is unaware of possibility of risks, but that his "concern" for such vary significantly from your own.

For those interested, that is misunderstanding my whole point.

As I described, you can ascribe lower values to both likelihood and cost (it's a mix of art and science to evaluate risk, outside essentially laboratory controlled conditions), but the categories of risk litigation are clearly defined and have some non-zero likelihood of happening and incurring some cost.

In addition, one's tolerance for risk can be amazingly high.

Whatever the numbers, however, the rational framework is the same: Whatever numbers you put to the risk and whatever is the risk you are willing to tolerate. My point is just make sure number 1 is lower than number 2 and I'm lambasted as the most preposterous of business dullards.

The reason the debate dragged on is that @Jamal is risk averse, the main justification for making the business being to avoid liability. If he was high risk tolerant, absolutely willing to see how a bankruptcy plays out if it comes to that, live and learn and bounce back stronger with an interesting tale to tell, then there would be no tension in the exchange. As ye ol' business sea captain, I'd just be reminiscing about all ye ol' business sea monsters out there, and @Jamal would simply be eager to get out there on the business high seas, feel the salty business spray in his face, look out to the horizon wondering what business marvels and terrors may be out there to discover, come what may.

@Jamal would just be like "pray, boethius, tell us again of ye ol' business battle with ye ol' giant business squid with ye ol' giant business tentacles; how did ye contend with such a behemoth of the dark business deep?".

Then I'd be all like ... ah yes, Isabel Dos Santos was ye ol' business sea monsters name ... I remember her well I do.

You can read all about the saga of business cove in these two archives:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Q4Vfr5U7Lc7_k2ZK6GKgagyMSYeYEPPp?usp=share_link

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SXU6VkygIWM14S4O-IQQUhlz41qYBjFH?usp=drive_link

Stay tuned!

Reply to Outlander

So, your image troubled me, because I do want to be inclusive. But there's a limit: according to StatsCounter, Windows 7 is 2.5% of the worldwide market share: 2.36% in the US, 1.9% in Europe, 0.28% in Asia, 2.56% in Africa, less than 1% down under. In my opinion that's not enough to demand we abandon Discourse.

Unfortunately this means you'll have trouble using the new forum unless you just use your phone, or—and you should sit down before you read this suggestion—update your operating system. [hide=May I suggest]Ubuntu Desktop.[/hide]

Actually you can apparently use Firefox ESR on Windows 7, but that's just what ChatGPT told me.

https://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide

I have a feeling that the last time I used Windows it was Windows 7, and that feels like a whole lifetime ago: before I joined PF, before I got married, before I went housesitting around France, and before I had grey patches in my beard.

Quoting Jamal

In my opinion that's not enough to demand we abandon Discourse.

Absolutely. No one should have any ability to make you think otherwise.

Quoting Jamal

Unfortunately this means you'll have trouble using the new forum

Not necessarily. I've come to admire the nice features and design of Plush, but it's the interaction (the words sent and received) that are the reason I frequent this forum. Nothing else. Provided I can read plain text and respond accordingly, there's no real detriment.

Quoting Jamal

Actually you could apparently use Firefox ESR

I am (now) on the most up to date version of Firefox: 115.30.0esr. That's the acronym of "Extended Support Release" I had posted prior, yes. The result is the same. Which again is no concern of mine. I don't think the presence or absence of the occasional emoticon or having to right-click on an image to view it's full link is anything worth giving a second thought about. If it were a more widespread issue, that might actually result in more than one or two disengagements or disinclination to participate, then yes. But if the statistics you read are accurate, no such concerns are present.

It's fairly interesting how, despite every single other site I browse being basically normal with full features (banking, eCommerce, social media, etc.) this one platform decides to be like "ok let's turn his experience into something from the 1990s" for seemingly no reason at all. But again, perhaps motives I've yet to understand are justified.

Quoting Outlander

I am (now) on the most up to date version of Firefox: 115.30.0esr. That's the acronym of "Extended Support Release" I had posted prior, yes. The result is the same. Which again is no concern of mine. I don't think the presence or absence of the occasional emoticon or having to right-click on an image to view it's full link is anything worth giving a second thought about. If it were a more widespread issue, that might actually result in more than one or two disengagements or disinclination to participate, then yes. But if the statistics you read are accurate, no such concerns are present.

It's fairly interesting how, despite every single other site I browse being basically normal with full features (banking, eCommerce, social media, etc.) this one platform decides to be like "ok let's turn his experience into something from the 1990s" for seemingly no reason at all. But again, perhaps motives I've yet to understand are justified.

Do you have JavaScript turned off? Discourse is basically a JavaScript application.

In any case I think you might have more trouble than you think, I'm sorry to tell you. It won't just be a matter of visual style, emojis and so on.

Quoting Jamal

Do you have JavaScript turned off? Discourse is basically a JavaScript application.

I do not. I can browse most popular websites easily and with full functionality: Facebook, Twitter (X). Amazon, Google, banking websites, etc. Discourse is literally the only site I can recall that gives me the "your browser is out of date" spiel (along with reduced functionality) I have ever seen on this PC I've had for 5 years now.

Quoting Jamal

In any case I think you might have more trouble than you think, I'm sorry to tell you. It won't just be a matter of visual style, emojis and so on.

If a topic engages me enough, I'll find a way. I again have a phone, and in fact an old tablet I can tether to the Wi-Fi, if need be.

Even if my access on PC ends up being read-only, it takes 2 seconds to pull up the thread I may desire replying to on mobile. Not an issue for me. Though others (if there are any) may object to such on ideological grounds. Not me, however. :smile:

Quoting Outlander

I can browse most popular websites easily and with full functionality: Facebook, Twitter (X). Amazon, Google, banking websites, etc. Discourse is literally the only site I can recall that gives me the "your browser is out of date" spiel (along with reduced functionality) I have ever seen on this PC I've had for 5 years now.

Those websites you mention are traditional multi-page applications, whereas Discourse is an SPA. That's the difference. I recall you and @Michael and I were talking about SPAs vs MPAs a couple of years ago.

And now, your worst fears have come true and TPF is becoming an SPA.

Quoting Jamal

And now, your worst fears have come true and TPF is becoming an SPA.

Well, shoot. I'm just one poster. See what others have to say and go from there I guess. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right. Or no, that's not quite right. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Or something "Star Warsy" like that.

Arguably, the banking site I use is SPA. You log in and everything most people use routinely seems to be SPA. Sure there's links to terms and other features and whatnot. I consider my activity here as a hobby. Mostly for my benefit. Most people elsewhere disappoint my expectations to understand and engage with ideas I have. But it's not their fault.

And either way. You're not the sole vanguard of intellectual spaces online, need I remind you. :smile:

Quoting Outlander

You're not the sole vanguard of intellectual spaces online, need I remind you.

I'm working on it.

@Jamal

Perhaps this question may be obvious – will the "Currently Reading" thread also be part of the new TPF version on Discourse.org?

It helps me a lot to remember what I read during the year. Furthermore, thanks for your comments and recommendations; I discovered good and intriguing authors.

Reply to javi2541997

Yes, and I want to keep it in a category which is not hidden from the main page.

Quoting Jamal

Yes, and I want to keep it in a category which is not hidden from the main page.

Wonderful! What a great idea! :up:

Reply to javi2541997

Yeah, I've learned a lot from that thread too. I'm sure there are several books I've read because someone posted about them there. I've added several of your own choices to my reading list, though inevitably it has taken me a long time to get around to reading them.

Reply to Jamal Indeed, it takes time to get around to reading them. The issue (though I hesitate to call it an "issue") arises when you discover a new style of literature that deeply captivates you. I planned to read many Russian writers this year, and the result has been good but far away from what I expected. I discovered authors from Eastern European countries whose books captivated me to the point of becoming very fond of them.

Reply to Jamal
Glad to hear the Currently Reading thread will continue.

Discourse announces an AI Assistant for using their software

@Jamal, any plans for the use of AI in our new home?

Quoting Banno

Here's an answer to the conundrum - integrate the AI into the chat.

Rather than worrying about how much of a post is generated by AI, it might be useful to have the AI as a participant in the forum, so that the sort of questions at which it excels can be asked and answered quite openly.

Reply to Banno
I object to that idea. I would rather have it be a resource for people who use it to supplement their limitations. Don't we all disagree enough without adding an agent that does not need to explain itself?

Reply to Paine
Fine. I can see a benefit in making the AI's input explicit rather than covert. Lets's see what Jamal's thoughts are.

Reply to Banno
How does it not become a form of arguing on the basis of authority?

Is there a modal logic answer to that question?

Quoting Banno

Fine. I can see a benefit in making the AI's input explicit rather than covert. Lets's see what Jamal's thoughts are.

There is no fun in playing chess software at grandmaster level. Sometimes it's fun to set it at moron level so you can beat it and feel smart.

So, where I'm going with this is AM, artificial moronism. You have the software say stupid shit and you get to ridicule it and show it what an idiot it is.

I mean that does sound more fun than having it constantly winning every argument.

I know what you're thinking. This post is from an AM generator. Nope, it's truly from yours truly.

Reply to Paine, Reply to Hanover, you both presume an adversarial model of discourse. Now fun as that is, it might be interesting to explore other possibilities...

Quoting Banno

any plans for the use of AI in our new home?

Quoting Banno

Rather than worrying about how much of a post is generated by AI, it might be useful to have the AI as a participant in the forum, so that the sort of questions at which it excels can be asked and answered quite openly.

There are several AI features included, and we may use some of them, but they won't replace one's own use of AI for research, and I won't be paying to integrate GPT5 or Claude or Gemini, since users can access those LLMs through their own accounts. The AI features will be powered only by the free LLM provided on Discourse hosting.

meta.discourse.org;https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-ai-large-language-model-llm-settings-page/319903?tl=en:Additionally, hosted customers can use the CDCK Hosted Small LLM (Qwen 2.5) pre-configured in the settings page. This is an open-weights LLM hosted by Discourse, ready for use to power AI features.

The features are:

1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
Automatically generates short summaries of long threads, helping users catch up without reading entire discussions.

2. Semantic Search
Search powered by embeddings rather than keywords, returning relevant results even when queries use different wording.

3. AI Moderation
Detects spam, toxicity, NSFW material, and problematic content, reducing moderator workload.

4. AI Bot
A chat-style assistant that users can interact with. It can answer questions using forum content or general knowledge, depending on the model used.

5. Post Editing Assistant
Suggests rewrites, clarifications, translations, or tone adjustments while composing or editing posts.

6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete
Offers context-aware writing suggestions to help users complete sentences or refine ideas as they type.

7. AI Tools for Staff
Provides moderators/admins with tools such as user-history summaries and condensed views of long discussions.

8. AI Tagging / Categorization
Automatically assigns tags or recommends categories, improving forum organisation with minimal manual effort.

9. Related Topics (AI-powered)
Suggests similar past threads based on semantic similarity rather than keyword matching.

10. AI Translation
Provides instant translation of posts or post drafts, supporting multilingual community participation.

In other words, it's not for doing philosophy but for (a) managing the forum, (b) providing help to users ("how do I update my avatar?"), and (c) other unobtrusive useful things like summarizing topics, translation, and suggesting titles.

We can turn all those features off, but some of them are too useful. Those who don't like the encroachment of AI might not like the "Summarize topic" feature, but I actually think it'll be good. People are often too lazy to read a whole discussion before commenting, and sometimes it's so long that nobody is going to do it. In those cases its better that they have an idea of what's been said than no idea at all, no?

As for using it for moderation: nobody is going to be banned or anything by the AI bot. It will probably flag problematic content and then the human team will review it.

Reply to Jamal Thanks for the reply. Seems pretty minimalist.

Summaries and semantic search look helpful. How the AI bot fits will depend on how it is implemented and how powerful it is.

Reply to Banno

I suggest you don't think of it as a participant. As I say, it won't do philosophy, just grunt-work.

@Paine @Hanover

To summarize:

AI on Discourse will not participate in discussions but will just do background labour—things like summarizing, filtering spam, providing help (like telling you how to change the background colour). It's just a clever tool, not a member of the forum.

Reply to Jamal Ok, cheers.

Might be a lost opportunity, but I'm not up on the detail. Or cost.

Maybe, in the forum after the next, it will be considered the norm.

Quoting Jamal

The features are:

3, 7, 8 and 10 I love.

2 and 9 I wonder if they're on a vague but useful borderline? Dunno. No clear objection, anyway.

1, 4, 5 and 6, though? I can't see how they square with:

Quoting Baden

Site Guidelines (Note: NO AI-WRITTEN CONTENT ALLOWED!)

[...] AI LLMs may be used to proofread pre-written posts, but if this results in you being suspected of using them to write posts, that is a risk you run. We recommend that you do not use them at all.

?

I suppose such notions will disappear in the rewritten guidelines?

I mean, boo! :cry: but still grateful for your efforts.

Out of interest, and I'm not holding my breath, but I don't suppose there is any chance at all of turning particular buttons on or off in particular categories? You could (if that were the case) try a "Luddites' Corner", for people preferring specifically human to human dialectic?

Quoting bongo fury

1, 4, 5 and 6, though?

(As a reminder these are the relevant items of @Jamal's stipulated usages of AI):
[b]1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
4. AI Bot
5. Post Editing Assistant
6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete[/b]

I suspect a handful of posters use these already. Perhaps to mitigate surface-level typographical errors arising from the designated language of this forum not being their first or "primary" language.

So, effectively, though it might encourage a few people who would otherwise not use AI, it likely will only be used by people who use AI anyway.

Do I think it's necessary? Of course not. Would I prefer it be turned off altogether? Maybe maybe not. I just wouldn't use it, and those who metaphorically want to ride bikes with the rest of us with their training wheels on probably shouldn't be belittled for it. Lightheartedly ribbed perhaps, but little more. After all, there is much I don't know about even basic concepts of philosophy so I may even find 1. (AI Summaries) of particular use. Who knows. Though the option to disable/hide any and all "appearances" of it personally to the individual user, is something I hope is a switchable option.

I can find it being noteworthy to point out the seemingly shifting attitude toward AI from the highest levels of TPF. Though perhaps this was in resignation and begrudging acceptance (similar to climate change) rather than an old-fashioned "change of heart." :smile:

Quoting bongo fury

You could (if that were the case) try a "Luddites' Corner", for people preferring specifically human to human dialectic?

I don't imagine @Jamal being on board with this. Despite it sounding conceptually interesting. What would it categorically represent? Wouldn't it just divide discussions away from their intended category into an effective "second Lounge?" :chin:

Quoting Outlander

1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
4. AI Bot
5. Post Editing Assistant
6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete

NOTE: I'd like everyone to know that I have not decided on which features to use, so we may not have these features turned on at the new TPF. I just reported on what was available in the AI plugin and expressed some tentative views.

Quoting bongo fury

Out of interest, and I'm not holding my breath, but I don't suppose there is any chance at all of turning particular buttons on or off in particular categories?

A.I. features can be restricted to certain groups, so I could conceivably make it available only to those who ask for it, by creating a group called ... whatever the opposite of Luddites is.

But I'd prefer to turn features off for everyone, rather than dividing the membership like that. People can always use their LLMs independently, just as they always do.

Quoting Jamal

whatever the opposite of Luddites is

Technophile.

Reply to Outlander :up:

Quoting Paine

How does it not become a form of arguing on the basis of authority?

The question that just doesn't go away. :up:
It came up explicitly in the exchange beginning with Reply to this post, but was never addressed or even acknowledged. It is the old difficulty of those who won't admit that they are relying on an authority at all.

Quoting Jamal

In other words, it's not for doing philosophy...

We can turn all those features off, but some of them are too useful. Those who don't like the encroachment of AI might not like the "Summarize topic" feature, but I actually think it'll be good. People are often too lazy to read a whole discussion before commenting, and sometimes it's so long that nobody is going to do it. In those cases its better that they have an idea of what's been said than no idea at all, no?

Maybe, but if users are regularly relying on AI summaries of threads then we will inevitably be using AI to do philosophy, at least on the assumption that interpreting a post or thread is philosophical work.

Quoting Jamal

6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete
Offers context-aware writing suggestions to help users complete sentences or refine ideas as they type.

As a programmer this is the only feature of Cursor that I use. I've never once asked it to generate code for me. I'm stubbornly old-fashioned.

Quoting Banno

?Paine, ?Hanover, you both presume an adversarial model of discourse. Now fun as that is, it might be interesting to explore other possibilities...

I don't suppose I could argue otherwise without using that model.

Maybe you could try your idea within an OP as an experimental clinic. I am having difficulty imagining what you have in mind.

Reply to Paine I was looking at the ChatGPT function that allowed group discussions. Within that discussion, a participant can openly ask the AI to explain or to find resources.

Folk treat this as an "authority", but of course any authority here would be granted by the participants, not presumed. That is, if you disagree with the AI's response, then you could openly ask it for an alternate response, to ground your objection.

Might this serve to excrete the bullshit from a discussion? Perhaps. It might be interesting to try.

Reply to Banno
I am willing to see what happens on your ranch before trying it out on my cows.

Reply to Paine If there were enough interest, we might try a discussion on ChatGPT to see what happens.

Quoting Michael

As a programmer this is the only feature of Cursor that I use. I've never once asked it to generate code for me. I'm stubbornly old-fashioned.

I'm not. I've used AI a lot for coding in the last couple of years, maybe because I've mostly left behind coding as a career. Using AI in this context can be frustrating but it ultimately saves time and avoids tedium. It's also a very direct and fast way of understanding the ways that LLMs get things wrong generally.

I haven't used Cursor though, just copilot and externally with DeepSeek and ChatGPT. I guess I'll end up trying Cursor to get it all integrated.

What I've enjoyed about using LLMs in coding is that I can quickly build small, clean applications with very few dependencies and no bloat.

Quoting Jamal

EDIT: The archive is now available at tpfarchive.com, with data from November 2025. It will be updated with the new data when we shut this site down.

Well, that was super user friendly.

Quoting Banno

If there were enough interest, we might try a discussion on ChatGPT to see what happens.

I'm interested in participating, but is the suggestion that we all appear in real time and go back and forth with a discussion, or can it be adaptable to our format where we post at our leisure? I'd rather the latter only because conversational debate is very different than posting in terms of the thought and research going into each post.

Also, if it's live, the world generally operates on US Eastern Standard Time.

Reply to Jamal

I can see in the archive that our stories from the story competitions are in the open. Would they be indexed by search spiders and AI scrapings? Just wondering if they should be brought over to the new TPF site and kept under login requirements so that they can still be published in places which demand them not to have been published before (which happens to be the case if they’re in the open I think).

I think them and the discussions should still exist, so not removing them, but maybe those exist in the new place rather than in the archive? Not sure how though, I’m not a coder. :chin:

Reply to Christoffer

I've ensured that the archive won't be indexed by search engines until we close this site, so at least for the next couple of months, nobody should be able to find a story by searching in Google or whatever.

I could only recall @hypericin and myself being concerned about the visibility of stories, and we're both ok with things as they are, but I can remove any story from the archive on an ad hoc basis—so let me know. I'm not taking any content over to the new site.

Quoting Hanover

the world generally operates on US Eastern Standard Time.

Not down here.

It's not a live chat. It's just a conversation like a regular ChatGPT page, but with the AI interjecting.

Can't believe you teased us with this but then said we have to wait until March.

Quoting Banno

Folk treat this as an "authority", but of course any authority here would be granted by the participants, not presumed. That is, if you disagree with the AI's response, then you could openly ask it for an alternate response, to ground your objection.

I heard an account from an academic that told of an AI, in response to a question, providing a factually wrong answer about Pindar; when questioned, it doubled down on its mistake by providing quotations to back up its claim. A long search through a lot of actual text in an actual library eventually proved that it was wrong. It had written the quotations itself. Many hallucinations will not be subjected to that level of examination. What earthly use is a machine like that? One might as well ask one's next-door neighbour.

Quoting Jamal

Using AI in this context can be frustrating but it ultimately saves time and avoids tedium. It's also a very direct and fast way of understanding the ways that LLMs get things wrong generally.

Nobody could quarrel with saving time and avoiding tedium. Your suggestions all seem sensible to me. If people don't find them useful, I'm sure they'll let you know.
But I'm very concerned about the way that LLMs get things wrong. Please can we think carefully about ways to trap harmful errors?

Quoting Jamal

The features are:

1. AI Summaries (Topic Summaries)
Automatically generates short summaries of long threads, helping users catch up without reading entire discussions.

2. Semantic Search
Search powered by embeddings rather than keywords, returning relevant results even when queries use different wording.

3. AI Moderation
Detects spam, toxicity, NSFW material, and problematic content, reducing moderator workload.

4. AI Bot
A chat-style assistant that users can interact with. It can answer questions using forum content or general knowledge, depending on the model used.

5. Post Editing Assistant
Suggests rewrites, clarifications, translations, or tone adjustments while composing or editing posts.

6. AI Autofill / Autocomplete
Offers context-aware writing suggestions to help users complete sentences or refine ideas as they type.

7. AI Tools for Staff
Provides moderators/admins with tools such as user-history summaries and condensed views of long discussions.

8. AI Tagging / Categorization
Automatically assigns tags or recommends categories, improving forum organisation with minimal manual effort.

9. Related Topics (AI-powered)
Suggests similar past threads based on semantic similarity rather than keyword matching.

10. AI Translation
Provides instant translation of posts or post drafts, supporting multilingual community participation.

In other words, it's not for doing philosophy but for (a) managing the forum, (b) providing help to users ("how do I update my avatar?"), and (c) other unobtrusive useful things like summarizing topics, translation, and suggesting titles.

Here’s my take on the AI stuff…

Good to have:
1
2
9 (especially if it can also be recommendations when reading a thread as to find related discussions and topics if you’re in the mood for a certain general topic to discuss)

Good, but in need of careful monitoring so it doesn’t skew anything:
3 (as long as it is reliable enough and doesn’t falsely flag people)
7 (as long as the AI doesn’t hallucinate stuff about members and discussions leading to wrongful bans or thread locks)

Should not be used:
4 (will most probably be hallucinating and convey bad takes and information. It will inhabit the problems of LLMs generally)

5 (Tone can be a power and a negative, but an AI constantly breathing down your neck to make everything sound bland will make conversations feel unpassionately uninteresting, it will make mistakes, might interpret an ironic harsh tone for being real etc. And it will more often than not interpret an argument wrong if that text is too novel compared to the topics it’s been trained on. Even if it’s just assisting it will cause a writing experience filled with constant interruptions by an obnoxious entity pushing for a direction it thinks is right, but more often than not will be negative for the writer. And clarifications are part of the dynamics of a discussion, someone asking for clarifications is part of the process of figuring out a topic together with others. So number 5 is more destructive to the experience than people think. People can use outside LLMs for assisting in modifying tone if they want to analyze their argument, but shouldn’t be ”on” by default on the forum)

6 (for the same reason as 5, NO manipulation while writing. And in this case it would risk manipulating the idea/intent/argument by changing the context of the text. Absolute ban on this on)

8 (this would funnel the whole forum into an algorithm that promotes what it thinks should be recommended. The whole point of this forum is to get away from the algorithmic slop of social media. We should absolutely not have an algorithm like this, it is death.

10 (This forum is English as the primary language. That’s not controversial and any translations is up to members to use their own LLMs for, it shouldn’t be part of the forum. It can also be filled with errors if the AI interprets something more complex than common texts. A very esoteric and creative text could be interpreted wrong)

———

In general, any AI use that change texts, guides you while writing or manipulates what’s being recommended/highlighted/focused on, should be absolutely banned from this forum. Those uses of AI is exactly what the forum rules on AI were formed against.

Any form of summarization, advanced searches or mod tools for spotting problems (but with the mod verifying, not the AI deciding anything), could be helpful.

Quoting Ludwig V

I heard an account from an academic that told of an AI, in response to a question, providing a factually wrong answer about Pindar; when questioned, it doubled down on its mistake by providing quotations to back up its claim. A long search through a lot of actual text in an actual library eventually proved that it was wrong. It had written the quotations itself. Many hallucinations will not be subjected to that level of examination. What earthly use is a machine like that? One might as well ask one's next-door neighbour.

As with a human, if a quote is given, then a citation must be provided. A human, or an AI, that quotes Pindar without giving a citation that can be readily checked can be ignored.

No need to search. Ask the AI where the quote is from.

Quoting Banno

As with a human, if a quote is given, then a citation must be provided. A human, or an AI, that quotes Pindar without giving a citation that can be readily checked can be ignored.

Yes. I don't understand exactly why they felt they had to go through all those texts. My point is really that once one realizes that the AI is not a magic fountain of truth, but needs to be treated as sceptically as a human being, one begins to wonder what the point of it is.
There are some things that it can do better than human beings. So let them stick to those tasks.

Quoting Banno

As with a human, if a quote is given, then a citation must be provided.

This is current internet dogma, yes, but it misses the point that a human may earn (and forfeit) a special kind of trust: authority, even. Dependent on accountability, and risk of shame.

Or they could, a year ago. When plagiarism was considered at all shameful. And saying "source please" wasn't every other sentence, and actually meant something.

Quoting Ludwig V

Yes. I don't understand exactly why they felt they had to go through all those texts.

To find out whether the bot were really as shameless as all that? Perhaps, though, having asked for and received from it full details of a source, it was remiss of them not to have politely sought clarification on whether these new details were indeed factual?

Quoting Ludwig V

one begins to wonder what the point of it is.

:ok:

Quoting bongo fury

a year ago. When plagiarism was considered shameful.

I think the problem is that AI doesn't fit into the standard ideas about plagiarism. If plagiarism is using someone else's work without acknowledgement, there's an issue about whose work the AI's work is.
Quoting bongo fury

To find out whether the bot were really as shameless as all that? Perhaps, having asked for and received from it full details of a source, it was remiss of them not to have politely sought clarification on whether these new details were indeed factual?

I have the impression that my informant did not believe the AI in the first place but found it hard to believe that it was wrong. As to the citation, either the AI did not, or could not, give one, or it did give one. It would take only a few minutes to see that the citation was wrong, so it was then necessary to check all the text to make sure it was not just a mistake about the citation.

Quoting Ludwig V

one begins to wonder what the point of it is.

At this point? Justifying building stuff because our lords have said it's time to accept the inevitable.

There are cities wanting data centers since our lords have pointed: not just manufacturing, but energy firms and city councils.

Though, yes, the point is not what it actually does for us as much as it's what it makes for thems owning the architecture we are currently communicating with.

Quoting Moliere

At this point? Justifying building stuff because our lords have said it's time to accept the inevitable.

The story of the roll-out does justify a feeling that it has been imposed, rather than introduced. There's an impression that the policy is to get it out there and embedded and sort out any problems afterwards - or don't sort them out and force us to accept whatever we are given. But the world was ready for it. How come? It's been a dream for decades.

Quoting Moliere

There are cities wanting data centers since our lords have pointed: not just manufacturing, but energy firms and city councils.

Well, yes. Everybody wants the latest thing. In a way, no different from the latest fashion in clothes or music.

Quoting Moliere

Though, yes, the point is not what it actually does for us as much as it's what it makes for thems owning the architecture we are currently communicating with.

Well, yes. The prospect of a fat profit is always an incentive.
But I think there's more than that to it. There's a prospect of finally getting workers who can do any job under any conditions without all the messy issues that come with employing human beings. There's a vision of god-like entities that will tell us how to solve all our problems. Disappointment will set in eventually.

@Jamal, so how goes it?

Reply to Banno

It should happen February/March as planned. I will post here when there's something to post.

Reply to Jamal Cheers.

Reply to Jamal We are already at the end of January. Time flies by!