A suggestion regarding post-quality related deletions
Posts which are of low quality writing and grammar, or low quality philosophical content, are understandably removed (lest the main feed cut a highly unappealing silhouette), but it has the regrettable ramification of generally upsetting the original poster. Ideally, someone will respond to criticism, moderator PMs, and post moderation by putting more effort and thought into their posts, but very often I have seen such moderation and criticism be taken very badly by the affected, which generally ends with them leaving the site. I do believe that this site can be a place where people can learn and improve their communication skills (though it is not its/our responsibility to be patient teachers), but being emotionally recoiled to escape velocity early on by the pang of post deletion has surely deprived some of such an opportunity, and the rest of the forum of their possible future contributions.
As an alternative to deleting posts which would be deleted solely for the reason of poor writing (punctuation/grammar/structure) or inadequate philosophical content (simplistic/esoteric/abstract/incoherent) they could be moved to a category of their own (one which does not populate in the all discussions section). This would not be a graveyard, nor a dunce corner, but instead a "construction site" with an emphasis on improvement and constructive criticism rather than denigration.
A stuck thread can explain that it is a section for threads which do not quite meet the standards of the forum, and offers some basic pointers people can use to actually bring their posts up to snuff. If some people find the threads within worth responding to, then they would be free to do so. Importantly, this could avoid or mitigate the emotional impact on a poster when their thread is deemed below standard, and better function as quality promoting sanction. Not merely a grotesquerie, it would also passively set precedents in a kind of case law which moderators can use to better clarify when it is best to move a post to this separate category, or from the forum entirely.
Who knows, having sword of Hanocles hang over all of us would probably incentivize us all to do better; perhaps some existing posts which do not face deletion (it being so harsh) would none-the-less be fit for such a separate forum category.
Thoughts?
As an alternative to deleting posts which would be deleted solely for the reason of poor writing (punctuation/grammar/structure) or inadequate philosophical content (simplistic/esoteric/abstract/incoherent) they could be moved to a category of their own (one which does not populate in the all discussions section). This would not be a graveyard, nor a dunce corner, but instead a "construction site" with an emphasis on improvement and constructive criticism rather than denigration.
A stuck thread can explain that it is a section for threads which do not quite meet the standards of the forum, and offers some basic pointers people can use to actually bring their posts up to snuff. If some people find the threads within worth responding to, then they would be free to do so. Importantly, this could avoid or mitigate the emotional impact on a poster when their thread is deemed below standard, and better function as quality promoting sanction. Not merely a grotesquerie, it would also passively set precedents in a kind of case law which moderators can use to better clarify when it is best to move a post to this separate category, or from the forum entirely.
Who knows, having sword of Hanocles hang over all of us would probably incentivize us all to do better; perhaps some existing posts which do not face deletion (it being so harsh) would none-the-less be fit for such a separate forum category.
Thoughts?
Comments (53)
As I was not privy to the original discussion, could you share any information about its conclusion?
If it was a category, then discussions there would appear on the homepage by default, just like other discussions, and it wouldn't be immediately clear which category they belong to. So, in practical terms, it wouldn't really be any different than if they were left in their original category.
Personally, I don't like the idea. I think that it would be an unnecessary distraction which would lower the quality of the forum by neglecting to remove poor quality content. If, after reading the guidelines, and attempting to abide by them, the staff decide that your comment or discussion doesn't meet the standard, then it should be deleted, and you would then have the option of contacting the staff with any questions or complaints, or using the Feedback forum, and/or taking another stab at it. That's fair enough, I think.
Did you mean "sword of Damocles" or was this a pun on the House of Hanover?
I don't know how the site software works. Too bad there can not be a category of "threads needing grammatical/content rehabilitation" not viewable by all.
One of the problems for people who have posts deleted or get banned for low quality is that they did not sign up for having their self-worth attacked on the grounds of bad grammar or inadequately considered writing. Most students who know they are going to be evaluated don't like it either, but they at least have more reason to expect red ink.
My guess is that most people did not read the guidelines until they found they were in violation. Most people don't read directions, either, until all else fails. Do I really need to read the directions for operating an electric toaster? Or posting on a free web site? c
Is there a way of requiring assent before people are allowed to post? Like the way every two-bit web site is able to compel us to agree to the newly revised terms of service? So, "I understand that moderators will evaluate my writing and may find it deficient and remove it. There is no appeal, so suffer, bitch! I will strive to do better in the future." Agree (check) Disagree (check)
Something like that.
Not to my knowledge, but that's an idea for feature requests. The wording might need a few alterations here and there, but other than that it would've got my vote.
Good idea. That is one kickass disclaimer! :up:
The specifics of your idea may or may not be possible to implement, but the thought and feeling behind it are commendable. New members might need a little patience and direction. They would find a good example in your well-written posts. There are certain little things about this wonderful forum that might possibly benefit from tweaking or updating, IMHO. Could be a software limitation thing. Or maybe the moderators are just too busy driving their Lambos and hanging with Elon Musk and the Winklevoss twins. :snicker:
I tend towards this view especially with the homepage set up here, but we'll continue to listen.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes, we recently got a fifty percent payrise on our zero dollars per lifetime rate. Chuffed with that.
And yeah, Posty had his 'draft' thread which fall away pretty quickly, because its clear no one is here to play janitor.
:up:
My sense is such post will languish at the bottom of the forum drawer where no-one looks. Maybe a few esoteric conversations might run between a couple of users who grasp what the other is getting at (though that might not be a good thing, if they are only talking crackpottery).
I think there is absolutely value in people drafting threads and getting input from other people. Such a process, to would seem to me, would be better conducted on an individual basis, where the writer consulates users knowledgable in that area. Shouting out to a whole forum doesn't seem to be a very effective way of handling such a development process. Though, this general involves a focus and relationships I've not seen too much of on this forum.
I like the idea as long as it requires no extra work on my part. :100:
Even if one wanted to uplift the ungrammatical, it takes too long and is too complicated to do in this kind of setting. The untaught will just have to get used to being shunned until they gird up their loins and begin studying the ways and means of proper English.
I was hoping that this section could be omitted from the all discussions section/home page somehow. I realize now such a feature is not available, as points out.
Quoting Sapientia
It's fair enough, to be sure, I just wondered how much we could possibly gain by softening the emotional blows of moderation (mainly in turnover rate). As an aside, Are there any reasons why we have no "graveyard" section where such posts could remain locked in perpetuity, if only to serve as record and cautionary examples? (I notice that sometimes the thing that gets to posters the most is that they had no copies of their removed posts, and perhaps being able to re-read them would prove didactic for them). It would be great for moderator transparency but it might also just wind up being a source of drama, or as Streetlight also points out, not worth it as the bar is already so low.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Admittedly not one of my finer puns. I enjoy making Damocles metaphors, and for some reason among the moderator staff I'm not unfamiliar with, Hanover hangs out as the edgy one. :D
Quoting 0 thru 9
Quoting Baden
In my head it didn't create additional work or headaches for the moderators, they would just move offending threads and the stuck thread would explain why it's in that category. I don't begrudge the mods any hip-shooting though, it's a tedious and thankless task they're volunteering to do, so anything that makes that job more difficult had better be well worth it.
It was worth considering though...
Yes, still listening. I'm not rejecting it out of hand. There have been a few occasions where warnings or deletions have escalated into situations that made a ban our only option. And we would obviously like to avoid that if possible. Banning stopped being fun a long time ago and will not be fun again until Hanover goes nuts and tells us all to fuck off.
I don't think it does. People ignore guidelines all time. I mean its fine for transmitting information about the guidelines and putting in place the paperwork for any ensuing moderation, but it doesn't get to the heart of the underlying question here. The focus of this topic seems to be involving or bringing up people who don't yet meet a standard.
Having a system to which we can point and say: "We pointed out a rule" (as fine as it might be for other purposes) doesn't address this question about the knowledge/skill/participation of those who don;t meet the rules.
Where am I supposed to paste this?
"I understand that moderators will evaluate my writing and if they find it deficient, they might remove it. I understand that there is no appeal; the moderators' actions are final. As a TPF user, I will strive to improve my writing forthwith."
Agree (check) and welcome to The Philosophy Forum
Disagree (check) and forgo participation in The Philosophy Forum
Oh, I meant I'd do it if we can figure out a way to integrate it. And I was being a bit tongue in cheek. If we do put up a disclaimer, we'll polish your rough-hewn words a bit to make them shine as they deserve.
There have been occasions where deleted posts are characterized by some as potentially worthwhile, and these edge cases would also be served by such a purgatory like category.
My main consideration is turnover-rate actually, and while I have no way of knowing how often the hurt feelings of post removal actually result in the loss of a member (or how much a segregated category for low quality threads would mitigate that pang), retaining one or two members every now and then would add up over-time.
I suppose it could be an option to move certain posts into such a category, but the point is some people might use it on their own. It would be nice to have a social norm of being a bit kinder and gentler when commenting in such threads-- don't know whether moderation should have a different standard though-- and only people interested in helping others learn should be there.
(It feels like there are already too many categories here and the category system isn't used all that well, so recommending yet another category feels wrong. Still.)
That's what the Learning Centre category is for. There is a question subcategory in there and resources for newbies (which anyone can add to).
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
On this one, I'd say no. We're not here to promote laziness. Students need to do their own homework or at least be able to start a proper OP that stimulates conversation from which they can then draw ideas.
Oh I don't think *we* should have a homework category-- just an example of a self-sorting option other sites have.
I took another look at the learning center before I posted, but it just doesn't really have a spot for "My First Attempt at Doing Philosophy" posts.
I remember another example, a writing forum I was on years ago, that had categories roughly divided by how harsh you could expect the criticism to be. A sort of "shallow end"/"deep end" thing. It's not that the shallow end means starting from 0, but at least you could avoid the deep end if you wanted to, and others could completely ignore the shallow end.
One other alternative, is to create a group of storm-reporters, who can flag any dumb and stupid posts and report them as soon as possible.
I guess my issue is more I'd consider everyone one the site in that category. The relevant between myself, SX or Bittercrank and such a new poster is only that the latter fails to meet a standard for engaging with community.
If the goal is for them to be part of the community, I don't see why the goal would be just to make a space for them make statements that go unnoticed. I'm not sure how it really benefits them because learning from other makes up such a large part of development.
I'd rather see them engaged with the rest of the community rather cordened off to their own hall where no-one really goes.
I guess you could have a space to put posts that aren't good enough, but I worry about the distinction it creates and fear it falls into a motivatation outside helping people learn.
I would have assumed that we are all 'students' of philosophy.
However since the distinction has been made and some are admittedly 'students' and some are not, one might assume from much of the foregoing that moderation on the forum is conducted by the non-students, or simply the 'wise ones'. I don't mean to be flippant here, however if one is to exercise the authority to deem a particular idea or proposal immature, deficient or un-philosophical, and deal it a non-negotiable death blow; all users of the form (students and wise-ones), should have the freedom to question the credentials of the 'wise-one' who has effectively silenced the idea.
Therefore it is not unfair to ask, what are the credentials of the moderator? And who is moderating the moderators?
If these questions are not asked (preferably they are asked by the wise-ones themselves rather than obstreperous 'students'), we run the risk of something of a cabal forming, where self professed 'wise-ones' need only obtain entry to the cabal in order to impose their own world view upon a particular forum via the suppression of ideas or individuals that they simply disagree with.
Moderation is thankless and essential, however, by definition it should be conducted with moderation and equanimity and upon the basis of a credential of some kind (formal or informal), a credential other than the fact that the suppressed idea is simply not-liked.
Certainly if an idea or statement has the potential to cause harm or hurt it should be immediately removed, however if it's only crime is that it hurts the preconceptions or fixed convictions of the 'wise-one', we should be very careful as the forum then runs the risk of becoming confined to the arena of the 'wise-ones'. If this were to become the case the 'wise-ones' might well become the inquisition.
M
:sweat: Well deserved! But seriously though, thanks for your responses in this thread and gratitude to the moderators for all that they do to keep it grooving here. Thanks for being the parents in this fun philosophical playground. Umm, that reminds me... Posty has been eating stuff out of the sandbox again, Agu is making faces at the girls, and BC called me a big fat poopy head... not that I’m tattling or anything. :monkey:
If you wish the issues on the playground and the immanent risk to Posty's health to be addressed in the context of the parental analogy, you would be best advised to first ask yourself:
Who's yo daddy now!
The unsavory word 'bitch' is usually applied to the end of the question, but I am rather sensitive to slurs, so I shall leave it confined to the semi-colon.
M
:up: I was thinking before of a simple thread that dealt with grammar, style, formatting questions and answers. Starting such a thread would not require a software update or such. True, it not the forum’s main purpose. It could just be another thread in the Lounge. Personally, I’m still not sure about certain grammatical rules, despite google searches. In this proposed thread, quotations from posts could be examined for how to possibly improve the presentation. The quotes need not be linked to their author, to avoid any embarrassment. Examples of excellent style (as opposed to the content) could also be cited.
We all make mistakes (thanks heavens for spell check and optional auto-complete), and some of my posts could even be used as examples of what not to do, especially concerning run-on sentences and getting over-enthusiastic with parentheses (which might be very helpful, even educational; and by the way, does the punctuation mark go on the inside or outside of the parentheses?)?
:wink:
And so the multi-layer approach I propose is that the first post one posts will be almost incomprehensible, filled with typographical errors, grammatical stupidities, and maybe even meandering diversions. Did you know that the word "divert" is from the same root as "Baden," meaning "to have sex with your mother on the toilet while your little brother is taking a bubble bath and using the bubbles to make a beard while he cries out 'Ho ho ho, I'm Santa Claus.'" That word is super specific and gets little use these days. It's a term of art.
Alright, so the first suck ass post will be a Level I post and then with each passing day the subsequent posts will be improved, and just like a little leaguer who's one day called up to the pros ("Hey kid, pack your bags, you've been called up to the big show"), one day the post that began as an early first trimester and still abortable post (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade) can now be on the Main Board for all to debate.
Quoting Baden
Actually my insanity looks more like the above than an angry tirade. That's how my world will end, not with a bang, but with a sort of naked spinning babbling episode in the town square.
Oooh, sounds intriguing! Mind if I come with? :yum:
:smile: And thanks for your other contributions, as well as your perseverance... hang in there. :up:
All publications everywhere are limited by the abilities, interests and experience of the editors. On net forums this is particularly true, given that the qualifications for a forum mod are basically only that one be pals with the current mods, and be willing to do a bunch of thankless work for free. So it's routine for 20 year olds who can't drink yet to be making decisions about the writings of people three times their age.
It's a fair question, but the answer is, someone willing to do the work for free. Point being, net forums are a "worth what we paid for it" experience, and we have to be realistic about what is possible.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
I have no clue what's going on here. :lol:
I don't know what your specific suggestion is here, but we moderate on the basis of the guidelines and there's also the check and balance of the mod forum.
At least this post is better than some of the crap you've been writing in the Shoutbox lately. Keep up the good work. :strong: :100:
Ah Posty... have you been on Malibu Beach, working on the tan?
Much has been going on (and going off) the forum in your absence... you might have to do a little reading of the foregoing, to join in the fun, much of which is contained in the thread "bannings" and the recently 'closed' threads.
M
Oh, nothing much, been preoccupied with the Tractatus thread. Been doing some deep thinking on myself also.
I don’t know either, but that’s never stopped me before. I think I was attempting some joke or extended metaphor about us being like unruly kids sometimes. You want half of my PB&J sandwich? Hope you’re not allergic to nuts... though if you were you probably wouldn’t even be here. :grin:
I don't wish to open an old sore however my post in respect of 'The naked truth of Trump' was closed/shifted/deleted by Streetlight in respect of his own (arguably Trumpist) opinion as to its content. He has made that clear. Quotations available.
There are several problems with the Trump debate being confined to the single topic 'Donald Trump'.
In the first place the thread is some 1.2k long and therefore anyone wishing to explore another aspect of the issue is 'compelled' to be cognizant of 1.2k of previous posts, this is impossible. And nowhere on the forum does the precedent exist that for example all Shopenhauer posts should be deleted and shftied to a single Shopenhauer discussion. There is neither a guideline nor a precedent for this. It is just 'intellectual thuggery' pure and simple. (quotations available)
Secondly the notion that there is only one place to talk about the Trump issue (and arguably one kind of Trump discussion) is not only ludicrous, but is contradicted by the presence of another Trump post "what will muller find". Therefore the notion that my Trump discussion was moved in respect of some guideline is at best unreasonable.
The suggestion that one of the biggest 'philosophical' issues of this century (Trump-ism) should be corralled into one thread as a consequence of a guideline is neither reasonable nor logical nor true. The current Donald Trump discussion confines the Trump issue to a particular and very limited philosophical horizon, hence my attempt to start a new discussion.
My discussion was transferred because Streetlight did not like its contents, and interestingly his actions confirm the content of the original post, in that there is a bit of Trump in almost everyone.
As for 'suggestions'
I get the impressions that suggestions, are like resistance to the Borg.
'Futile'
M
There's not only one place to talk about Trump. I did already tell you that. Anyone including you can start a new Trump discussion if they want. What matters is the quality of the OP not the topic. If it's something like you put up asking people to write what they love about Trump and it's going to attract duplicate posts with the other discussion, it will probably be merged. If it's something more specific or more philosophical it's more likely to be left separate.
In the discussion I make the point that Trump exemplifies some of the worst aspects of the human psyche, via his intellectual primitivism. I stated in the discussion OP that I 'like' Trump because he exposes the truth of the myth of our collective intellectual evolution.
Ie the darker side of Trump, the consequence of his existence and occupation of the Presidency.... as opposed to the simple stone throwing at the consequence of his 'acts', (the ongoing 'theme' of the existing discussion)
These are the points being addressed by the 'new' discussion. There is also the question \as to whether Trump's racism sexism and anti immigrant stance etc, reflect the private views of many anti-trumpists, who ostensibly like to 'have a go' at the relatively easy target of his acts, as opposed to the primitive and generally animalistic nature of the man's thought.
This is a different subject than that which is under discussion/siege on the current thread. Streetlight closed the thread because he did not like it, or felt threatened by it. Either way the reaction is pretty much the same as Trump and his wall.
M
Well, wouldn't a more constructive approach be to try to rewrite the OP to make it more obviously philosophical? My impression was that you wrote what you loved about Trump which is the point as you outlined above. But you didn't seem to be asking for that to be discussed in the ensuing discussion but instead simply asking other posters to write what they loved about Trump as you did. That's where I thought the major weakness in the OP was. Maybe there's some misunderstanding about your intention but there's no reason for to believe StreetlightX was afraid of your idea.
Sure.
If you would kindly return the discussion I would be glad to comply and render the OP more 'obviously philosophical'.
:)
M
I think Hanover quoted the OP. So, can you use that as a basis, rewrite it and run it by me first by PM please.
(Edit: Actually it was Benkei.)
Great
I will open a new discussion re same.
I don't wish to trouble you with the hassle of supervising my ideas.
If the moderators disapprove of the content and take it down again... I am studious enough to get the proverbial message.
M
Up to you. Anyone can start a discussion at any time. If you want a significantly different result though I only suggest you make it significantly different.
Do you have numbers you could share? I've always assumed post deletion and thread deletion were pretty rare, a tiny fraction of the posts submitted and threads created.
It's curious that Plush offers a member reputation system (which I understand there was a decision not to use) but no ability to upvote and downvote threads, which could allow moderators to police policy instead of quality.
How many deletions are for low quality rather than forbidden content? Do we also get a lot of spam?
I guess I'm just wondering if we're really under siege in our little corner of the internet. I remember Usenet becoming, well, unusable, and the internet's response was tools that allowed communities to self-police a bit. Here we're forced to rely on (so far as we know) human moderators. I very much agree with what @TheWillowOfDarkness posted, but I still think allowing posters a way to freely self-sort could be helpful, and it looks like the only tool we have that might reduce the workload of the moderators, whatever that is.
:vomit:
Eat a bad mouse, O Esteemed Owl? Or perhaps you grew so tired of Eeyore’s complaining that you scarfed him down? Need some Pepto Dismal? :blush:
Sorry, don't have specific numbers for you. On the general point, we're not under siege but there's enough work to keep us ticking over. I probably delete a couple of OPs a week and then there's PMs and dealing with feedback and discussions in the mod forum, and so on. Definitely not under siege but we can't afford to be too complacent either. Seems to be less spam though since we got the filter up and running.