thephilosophyforum.com is the upper middle brow version of Youtube comments, mostly. It reflects cultural and philosophical issues more than it generates them. It tracks cultural issues much more closely than philosophical ones, as it's quite rare to have a discussion of contemporary academic philosophy. It sticks closer to older issues and major figures, you'll find many discussions of solipsism, scientific realism and horrifically bad interpretations of quantum mechanics much more than people discussing current scholarship on the issues.
We're the upper middle brow of internet disagreement also due to something of a social contract present on the site, enforced by the mods, which reprimands people treating it more like youtube comments and less like an exchange of letters and essays, though we have a lower standard of minimum quality or relevance than other academic interest forums. This is mostly due to philosophy itself being broad in content.
While which topics are treated and presented here, and how they are treated, tracks their representation in the internet attention economy outside of the forum quite well, the coupling of the power of content with the attention it generates and its propagation rate is diminished. This is a good thing, we all have a responsibility to the discourse here to make sure that it's not just a vector from crap to crap.
A consequence of this partial decoupling from the larger attention economy is that the forum looks somewhat like a 'free marketplace of ideas', and people will hold dear to the liberal trope that no expressions should be censored. To use the stereotypes, it can appear that we're sitting behind the screens like mini neckbearded Voltaires against the moderating cabal of cryptofascist cultural Marxists.
This makes moderating the site contentious at times, because it is actually pretty popular for an academic interest discussion forum and what makes it so is higher quality requirements and the mods' resisting the medium's natural tendency toward shitposting and meme-to-meme combat. So moderating policy also has to contain an element of attention economy management, this keeps things on topic and stops the forum being co-opted by special interest groups. Somewhat ironically, this is what makes it an island of free and reasoned expression amidst the sea of piss which is internet debate.
It sticks closer to older issues and major figures, you'll find many discussions of solipsism, scientific realism and horrifically bad interpretations of quantum mechanics much more than people discussing current scholarship on the issues. [...] This makes moderating the site contentious at times, because it is actually pretty popular for an academic interest discussion forum and what makes it so is higher quality requirements and the mods' resisting the medium's natural tendency toward shitposting and meme-to-meme combat. So moderating policy also has to contain an element of attention economy management, this keeps things on topic and stops the forum being co-opted by special interest groups. Somewhat ironically, this is what makes it an island of free and reasoned expression amidst the sea of piss which is internet debate.
I wonder to what extent you think this reflects changes in the internet itself. Perhaps I have an excessively nostalgic memory of the past, but the old version of this site struck me as far more interested in sophisticated and complex discussions. Very vaguely (since I always lurked but never posted), I remember learning a lot from a Pitt grad student with a Bertrand Russell avatar and a Thai (?) Marxist at Ohio State who made a lot of insightful comments about politics. We have some of those here (Streetlight!), but it seems to me the quality of discussion is not what it was on the old site (e.g. politics discussions between members like Maw and Augustino are vaguely interesting but not hugely illuminating) and there is little to no interest in academic philosophy. (No one discussing even major contemporary figures like Brandom, Ranciere, Noe, let alone serious current scholarship in semantics or QT.)
I am still massively enjoying this site, but it strikes me that this shift says more about the changing dynamics of the internet than the members or organization of this site. Petty political squabbling, shitposting, memes, emojis, etc. just seem to have been integrating into the practices of online communication in a way that's profoundly cheapened the conversation over the last decade.
No, you seem to be spot on. I think it's due to the structure of this forum, though. The other forum was more organized in terms of keeping discussions in the proper subforums. Here everything is packed into one page, and hence, you get various inputs and thoughts. I don't really think the moderating team made a huge influence; but, we did have a Ph.D. in philosophy as an admin on the previous website. The final authority that was, Paul was also pretty darn sophisticated in the art of philosophy, so he had some idea on how to gear the forum towards higher standards. Timothy was a moderator, as were some other grad students or undergrad students.
I remiss about the higher standards; but, what has been done cannot be undone. So, I make the best I can out of this forum.
We also had a debate forum that encouraged higher quality posts on the old site. We even invited some professional philosophers, like Chalmers or Searle, to put in their thoughts to organized questions of the sort. So, there was certainly an incentive to post higher quality posts also.
I wonder to what extent you think this reflects changes in the internet itself. Perhaps I have an excessively nostalgic memory of the past, but the old version of this site struck me as far more interested in sophisticated and complex discussions. Very vaguely (since I always lurked but never posted), I remember learning a lot from a Pitt grad student with a Bertrand Russell avatar and a Thai (?) Marxist at Ohio State who made a lot of insightful comments about politics. We have some of those here (Streetlight!), but it seems to me the quality of discussion is not what it was on the old site (e.g. politics discussions between members like Maw and Augustino are vaguely interesting but not hugely illuminating) and there is little to no interest in academic philosophy. (No one discussing even major contemporary figures like Brandom, Ranciere, Noe, let alone serious current scholarship in semantics or QT.)
We lost a lot of members who were actively engaged in philosophy. I don't think that's all the forum's fault, it seems just as likely to me that they moved on in their lives. Either to philpapers or away from the study. I don't remember much discussion of contemporary philosophy on the old site, proportionally anyway.
Having been an admod on both sites, I don't see any evidence standards were higher on old PF. There was no golden age in my view. There may be some difference as there is over time regardless of site as posters come and go, but I think what you are noticing is largely the effect of the default front page where more active and faster moving discussions dominate, and those are often the Shoutbox or political, and it's worth looking at doing something about that (it's possible to change the default view to categories rather than recent posts, for example). But certainly there is no greater tolerance for low quality posts here than there was on the old site, and there is no sudden drop in the philosophical skills of internet denizens. My take anyway.
We also had a debate forum that encouraged higher quality posts on the old site. We even invited some professional philosophers, like Chalmers or Searle, to put in their thoughts to organized questions of the sort.
That is one area where the old site had an advantage albeit a limited one as it was rare to get much engagement from guests. I remember Searle for example refused to post more than one reply in any discussion. Still though, I'm glad you brought it up as it's a line worth pursuing.
Anyway, I've split this into a new discussion in the hope that you and others can make specific suggestions for improving the site's quality, particularly in terms of encouraging a higher level of philosophical engagement. Maybe we have been too laissez-faire in that respect.
But certainly there is no greater tolerance for low quality posts here than there was on the old site, and there is no sudden drop in the philosophical skills of internet denizens.
Certainly, I did not mean to imply either that this site tolerates more low quality posts or that the folks on the new site are less interesting, sophisticated, intelligent, etc. than before. I think that my feeling - subjective, idiosyncratic, anecdotal - is that the way each of us communicates on internet forums like this has become less sophisticated over time. There's something different about how a site like this functions as a quasi-public space in 2018 as opposed to 2010 and I'm as "guilty" of this as anyone else.
Of course, this may be my falling into a tired reactionary trope, but it feels as though the rise of a certain modality of the internet in the 2010s - related to the colonizing of spaces and practices we find in Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. -- has made us all slightly more glib and contentious than we were before.
Tell you what, I'll stick a poll up later today. Final decision will be down to @jamalrob, but it will be worth gauging opinion. I am leaning towards thinking it's a good idea.
It'll be less work for you guys at the least, as it tends to promote self moderation by picking a subforum to post in and sticking to whether it's epistemological, metaphysical, ethics, or what have you.
it feels as though the rise of a certain modality of the internet in the 2010s - related to the colonizing of spaces and practices we find in Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. -- has made us all slightly more glib and contentious than we were before.
You could be right and maybe it's something we all need to be aware of and push back against more.
I tend to agree. It's tempting to jump in without much forethought the way things are at the minute.
I don't feel as though the site needs improvements in moderation. I didn't mean to imply that, so sorry if that came off that way. I just feel that we're approaching critical mass, where topics are pushed down the feed due to a sheet amount of posts being made at once. I also think a "newbie" subcategory or subforum would be pertinent if the plan gets realized as we have an abundance of newbie posts about philosophy, knowledge, belief, metaphysics. They tend to gets recycled by new members all the time in terms of making the same posts all the time.
I think you have both zeroed in on perhaps the biggest problem and are right to try and bring the issue wider awareness. My guess is that the current set-up is cleaner, nicer and more accessible but also corrosive of discourse.
Just as, for example, the previous system of upvotes/downvotes was fun but also cheapened discourse.
The final authority that was, Paul was also pretty darn sophisticated in the art of philosophy, so he had some idea on how to gear the forum towards higher standards. Timothy was a moderator, as were some other grad students or undergrad students.
Sorry to come around to this a little late, but was Timothy the Pitt grad student? I know a lot of people at Pitt and I've always wanted to find out who it was I learned a lot from but it's a weird question to go around asking people.
Also, I'm really disappointed to discover that Paul is not Bitter Crank, which I thought for whatever reason was the case. I'm actually a bit fuzzy on the transition to this site. What happened to Paul? Why the change?
We also had a debate forum that encouraged higher quality posts on the old site. We even invited some professional philosophers, like Chalmers or Searle, to put in their thoughts to organized questions of the sort. So, there was certainly an incentive to post higher quality posts also.
I remember those posts well. I suspect that nowadays it would be a lot harder to get philosophers to do an AMA on a place like this since they'd rather go to something large like "Partially Examined Life" or Reddit. That's IMO part of the corrosive, changing dynamics of the internet.
Maybe one thing you guys might think about is asking younger Tenure-Track or even Grad Students on the job market to consider coming on here to present their work. I think they might like the exposure and interest, which is always hard to come by. They're also less prone to be divas and more likely to engage than, well, certain prominent philosophers.
Sorry to come around to this a little late, but was Timothy the Pitt grad student?
According to what you said about him having the Bertrand Russell avatar, and being a mod, then yes that seems to be him. There was also a guy named sheps, who was also pretty knowledgeable about philosophy, although I think he had a degree in law.
Paul is still here, although he checks in rather sporadically.
Maybe one thing you guys might think about is asking younger Tenure-Track or even Grad Students on the job market to consider coming on here to present their work. I think they might like the exposure and interest, which is always hard to come by. They're also less prone to be divas and more likely to engage than, well, certain prominent philosophers.
That sounds like an interesting idea. I wouldn't be able to contribute; but, it would definitely raise the quality or standard of posts due to the influx of professional philosophers.
Also, I'm really disappointed to discover that Paul is not Bitter Crank, which I thought for whatever reason was the case. I'm actually a bit fuzzy on the transition to this site. What happened to Paul? Why the change?
That is fuzzy. :) Short version: Paul, after selling PF to someone called Porat, who turned out to be a shyster, stayed on the mod team of the old site until it went down. Those of us who didn't trust Porat left immediately and set this one up (luckily jamalrob had the know how). Paul never migrated over here though most of the other regulars, including mods, did.
He registered and posted a couple of times, but he didn't migrate as in post regularly.
Yes, true. Anyway, I don't think anything productive can be said about the old PF. What happened happened, and unless I win the lotto, I can't buy out the old database and revive the old forum. So, I'm satisfied with what's happening here.
It's time for me to sleep, but I really do hope you implement the small change you talked about in terms of having categories define where posts get posted. Just as a matter of trial and error I suppose. The thing is that if it happens or works out, then there's no going back to this format, so yeah.
I think it's a good idea (and it can be changed any time actually). Just out at the moment, but will put a poll up later. Final decision will then be down to jamalrob.
Reply to BadenReply to Posty McPostface Thanks, this helps give a lot of context to the old posts explaining what happened. I guess I never understood what happened because I could never wrap my mind around the idea: Who the hell buys a philosophy forum to turn a profit? And what good would it do to bully the members who in effect are the site?
From what I am reading it looks like Paul got paid handsomely and the site remained completely in tact (in this version) despite some drama, so I think everybody wins.
I can see why Paul would stop frequenting the site. The nasty nature of the destruction of the older site and change over to this one must have been hard on him but I am very glad that he appears to have received a duly deserved financial reward for all his work.
In any case, there's this very interesting post from Paul:
Maybe so according to the notion that more = better, but the most fun times I had at PF were in '02-'05. For me, the discussions were more fun precisely because there were few enough people that I could actually read a whole thread instead of having to skim 10 pages super-quick. And it was possible to get a good back and forth going with someone. Why bother to post if there are going to be too many replies to engage with?
I wouldnt worry too much about the lack of academically oriented threads. It is the summer, after all. I would expect there to be a lull outside of the regular university semesters. I know that, for me, a lot of my posting here is motivated by discussion with a teacher.
Lacking a better mentor, Trump will have to teach us all until september.
I think part of the problem is that posts from the Lounge can dominate the front page, which is why I’ve changed my default front page to exclude them.
@Baden, is this something that can be done automatically for everyone? Maybe with any other “low quality” categories?
Actually, yes, now that I've had a poke around under the hood. I've just given it a test run. That may be a good solution to keeping the Shoutbox in particular more low profile. Thanks.
The old forum had that page as well, and it's really the only one I used ("New Posts" I think it was called). The difference here is that I made that page the home page, that's all. Anyway, see the breakaway discussion for my opinion about the home page.
Interesting. I'd recently taken a break from posting in part as a consequence of what I considered to be the low philosophical content of posts (though also in part because of the low interest I had in what were perfectly adequate posts in terms of quality). I used to write for an in-house journal back in my academic days, and we had exactly the same problem with low submission quality. What I thought was interesting at the time, and is now writ large over the Internet, is the extent to which "low quality submission" simply acts as a proxy for "submission I don't approve of". Its like Tolstoy's happy families, the good ones are all alike, but the bad ones are all bad for different reasons, only here we will not even all agree on the reasons.
@John Doe's comments are a good case in point. I found myself going along with his analysis almost entirely in general, until he provided his example (Steelight). Personally, I find Streetlight's posts to be mostly nothing but either pomo mumbo jumbo, or posts arrogantly dismissing other threads (usually on the grounds that they're not pomo mumbo jumbo). No offence, of course, there's noting intrinsically wrong with that. This, though, is the problem with trying to 'improve' the quality of posts somehow. Unless we have a widely approved definition of 'quality' we have no target to aim for and any attempt will just be personal bias. Personally, for example, I'd shut down any post which uses the word 'narrative' more than is strictly necessary and posts which have more than three words prefixed with 'post-' or (worst of all) 'neo-' would be similarly expunged.
So, for what it's worth, I'm all in favour of removing the Lounge from the main page (I have my main page set that way anyway and never post there), but if there's any further move to try and improve post "quality", I'd like to put in an early request to ensure that 'quality' and 'quoting extensively from that latest fashionable philosopher' are not confused.
This discussion is not intended to be a debate on any particular poster. If it were, and that poster was Street, I'd say he's one of our best. But it's not, so let's try to keep this about general ways to improve the site. All feedback on that welcome. Future personal criticisms of posters will be deleted as will any posts not about site improvements. This is intended as a constructive rather than a contentious discussion.
What happened happened, and unless I win the lotto, I can't buy out the old database and revive the old forum.
Really? You'd go back to that inferior quoting system and drafts that aren't saved automatically? Also, in hindsight, those internal comments and the rating system were bloody awful, and we're much better off without them, although they could be removed.
Reply to Sapientia It's odd. Some people just prefer the traditional forum design (I don't mean just PF, but in general on the web), though they never seem to be able to properly explain what they like about it, at least in my experience.
My post was intended to be entirely about ways to improve the site, or rather a warning about not going to far in certain directions. The fact that it contained a (very mild) jibe at the philosophy of a particular poster is wholly in keeping with a huge proportion of the posts on this site and if you're now deeming some of them to be so intolerable as to warrant deletion if repeated, then I think that the personal bias I feared in dictating which posts are acceptable and which are not is already here.
My thought is that there are few differences in moderation and the membership isn't dramatically different. The software is the most striking change, and it might be time to reconsider it. It's just less organized than the former software. This isn't to say the site can't survive and even thrive as is, but the software offers limitations.
Politics does dominate here and I can't recall if that were the case before. As noted, current academic trends are not discussed, but maybe those with such knowledge could start such discussions and move us in that direction. Again, though, different software formatting might even help for that.
I make the software modification suggestion with no understanding of the cost, labor, or complications involved, so I don't want to appear naive in that regard or act like it's a simple and obvious thing to do, but that's what I note as the major difference. This is not to say I don't find some real advantages in this site over the last (which I do), but I'm offering constructive criticism here in order to make the web's best philosophy site better.
I make the software modification suggestion with no understanding of the cost, labor, or complications involved, so I don't want to appear naive in that regard or act like it's a simple and obvious thing to do, but that's what I note as the major difference.
I've just thought of a way to improve the site. What if all of the most active discussions appeared on the home page by default? Then it would be more convenient for members to access those discussions which they themselves most actively participate in, providing a benefit to the membership, based on their own activities, instead of an obstacle, imposed by those who want to direct them.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 17, 2018 at 14:16#2065000 likes
He is doing wonderfully Paul. I can pass on a message to him for you or if you want, you can send him a PM here @Paul and I will nudge him to check in on his messages here. :flower:
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 17, 2018 at 14:19#2065010 likes
I've just thought of a way to improve the site. What if all of the most active discussions appeared on the home page by default? Then it would be more convenient for members to access those discussions which they themselves most actively participate in, providing a benefit to the membership, based on their own activities, instead of an obstacle, imposed by those who want to direct them.
Please don't improve the site very much. Some of us are getting old and changes are upsetting. Gmail is about to spring a new version on me. I don't know how much more I can take before I soil my Depends.
Then it would be more convenient for members to access those discussions which they themselves most actively participate in, providing a benefit to the membership, based on their own activities, instead of an obstacle, imposed by those who want to direct them.
Indeed. Good point. I actually changed my mind due to the latest posts not being able to be seen under the category format. So, this works with the lounge excluded from the main view of the homepage.
Why can't things just be more convenient like they used to be in the good old days? Now I'm forced to tap on an icon to bring up a menu, tap on the categories option, then scroll down, then tap again on the right category, and then tap once more on the discussion I want to bring up. It's either that or seriously discuss philosophy, and who in their right mind would want to do that?
Life is hard. :groan:
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 18, 2018 at 12:56#2066550 likes
I expect it will stay as is with the change in place for the foreseeable. I have swapped the category positions of the Lounge and Feedback though, as you suggested above, to make the former a bit more highlighted (and it seems more logical to me anyway). Hope this is some compensation. Overall the change is relatively minor, and I'm sure everyone will get used to it (except @Sapientia who's just a little crybaby).
unenlightenedAugust 18, 2018 at 13:42#2066620 likes
Reply to Baden You need to change the heading too, as it's no longer "All Discussions". I'd suggest "Philosophy Discussions", except we still have other stuff...
I expect it will stay as is with the change in place for the foreseeable.
I have swapped the category positions of the Lounge and Feedback though, as you suggested above, to make the former a bit more highlighted (and it seems more logical to me anyway). Hope this is some compensation.
I appreciate your consideration and Thank you for the swap but please don't do it just for "compensation" sake.
Overall the change is relatively minor, and I'm sure everyone will get used to it (except Sapientia who's just a little crybaby)
I am just going to roll with it. I will say that over the years at PF as well as TPF, the movement and health of conversation in the shoutbox has been a pretty good indicator as to the health of the forum.
It did not go without notice that recently (since TL was banned) for whatever reason the moderators and admins were suddenly not nearly as active in the shoutbox, to which I can only guess was a 'tone down the interaction in the 'shoutbox' suggestion.
My real sticking point is that if members here, which we all are, cannot keep control over their participation in a thread like the "Trump" thread, that is their problem, not mine, nor the forums' as a whole. That was the logic applied to me.
It would seem as though the suggestion/request of management to me, on my interaction with other member(s)on the 'Gun Control' thread, was to just ignore the member(s) if I remain in attendance of the thread. I complied with the request and stopped interaction.
Why is that logic not being applied to those who cannot/or don't want to control their interaction on a political thread?
It's a philosophy forum first and foremost, not a chat room.
A "chat room" is an interesting characterization of any thread other than the 'ShoutBox' thread.
I think I understand what is trying to be achieved and I just am wary of pulling that community thread back so far, that it snaps and the unraveling of the sense of community begins.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff
We didn't initiate the idea of changing. That came from members. We responded by polling and making suggestions, and that process led here. The community as a whole are apparently for change. It just happens it syncs with thoughts we've had for a long time concerning the dominance of the Shoutbox.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 18, 2018 at 23:53#2067460 likes
We didn't initiate the idea of changing. That came from members. We responded by polling and making suggestions, and that process led here. The community as a whole are apparently for change. It just happens it syncs with thoughts we've had for a long time concerning the dominance of the Shoutbox.
You are missing out the feedback of why good, decent, long term forum members are leaving the forum. The more that happens, the more homogenous in thought the forum will become.
Can you quote the part of your post that explains that? As far as I can see, no matter what we do on this some people are going to like it and some are going to not like it. I don't see it causing a mass exodus either way.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 18, 2018 at 23:58#2067530 likes
Can you quote the part of your post that explains that?
Yes, I think it would be more graceful to do so in private. Allow me to take care of reality for a couple days and I will get back to you and we can pow wow if you wish.
As someone who has greatly reduced my participation (for various reasons), I feel quality issues are coming more from the interests and behaviour from many people in the community (some old and some new). I do think things like the prominence of the shoutbox might have some effect on which discussions users are pulled into, but I feel most of it would come from an interest in arguing rather than learning philosophy.
Particularly, I feel lot of people don't have a respect someone else might be saying something knowledgable. People frequently start off in the wrong foot of trying to "debate" or prove something, instead of trying to understand.
I don't think this is necessarily an issue with an open forum. Its an inevitable aspect of being a community welcoming to everyone. PF had the same sort of issues, even at it peak. The counter is of knowledgable, generous posters interested who can from good discussions and bring other people along. This is what I think is really missing at the moment. A lot of regulars are spending a great deal chatting about politics, for example. Or they are not generous with or interested in topics which fall outside what they already know (props to Banno for breaking out of his usual patterns with that gender thread).
A certain lack of quality, I feel, is coming for either complacency, self-absorption or just a lack of interest from regular members. Distraction of shoutboxes and lounges might be a thing, but I think most issues are going to be coming form the interests and behaviour of regulars.
A lot of us probably spend too much time on politics, discussions of which tend to be more contentious and less charitable than other areas. But what do you suggest we change about the site in terms of policy to deal with that (other than what we've done)?
wouldnt worry too much about the lack of academically oriented threads.
Agreed. After exploring academic philosophy blogs for awhile in the hopes of finding higher ground, I've come away with the impression that academic philosophy is really more about the philosophy BUSINESS than it is about philosophy itself, and that there are significant conflicts between the agendas of business and philosophy.
Academics excel at creating polished presentations, but when it come to the quality of thinking, I see little improvement over what can be found on a general public philosophy forum like this one.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 19, 2018 at 00:56#2067670 likes
I'm not sure how much policy can effect that. Unless you outright ban politics or limit it daily discussion (which users will definitely not appreciate, I suspect), I think you might be stuck with people taking responsibility for what they are discussing.
It depends how much of the political activity is being driven by the terrible quality posts I guess. I do think moderation in the political discussions has been week. People have been allowed to get away with absurdly poor quality one/few liners, insults, personal attacks etc. in the political discussions. I understand wanting to give people leeway when passions run high (or when talking about an ethical terrible person or politics), but great streams of the political discussion seem to fall into that category. I mean like half the Trump thread (at the very least it feels like it), for example, would probably have been deleted for "low post quality" at PF.
Quite a bit of it seems to be coming from the regulars too. I think the forum could demand a great deal more effort from people when discussing politics. I just don't know whether that would translate into interest and higher quality in other discussions. People might just get angry they cannot throw out few line rant or attacks about politics and otherwise carry on the same.
*edit*
I just realised I used the wrong initials for PhilosophyForums, corrected.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 19, 2018 at 01:09#2067680 likes
I suspect they meant "academic" in the sense of having knowledge, study, understanding of philosophical topics. What does it look like in terms of philosophy? Usually, it means a change in the direction of philosophical questions and answers. Aside from knowing philosophical contexts and tradition, it usually means a move away from philosophy done on a basis of questions/speculation/ "prove" (e.g. "Is the world is real or not? Where the proof he world is not an illusion?) into one focused on understanding a particular truth or topic (e.g. "This is what we know." "This philosophy was saying X and it relates to these other ideas in Y way," etc.).
In terms of philosophical discussion itself, it does make a huge difference. Having studied your topic and understood it to a higher degree than others really does matter.
The Trump discussion is in the lounge not in politics for a reason, and it's contextualised by its OP like all discussions. So, it's not against the rules to rant about Trump there. However, we've just made it a lot easier to avoid, which is probably a good thing. And though, given its context, its unlikely we're going to mod it any more harshly, some of us *ahem* are realizing the pointlessness of going on about Trump and will be directing our energies elsewhere.
And having just looked through the political discussions in the politics and political philosophy categories, I don't see such major issues, and we do mod those more strictly. Anyway, criticisms noted. I'm optimistic you'll see some improvement in the near future.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 19, 2018 at 01:38#2067720 likes
Yes, I suspected that. A distinction between a casual discussion area and in-depth posting is fine.
My thoughts were more directed at the specific context. Yes, it's great to have an area where people can make causal comments about politics, but what happens when all the politics or major politics happens in the lounge, including discussions which would involve a context which is going in-depth? People shouldn't be able to circumvent certain standards regarding political posting just by taking a discussion to a casual area. At the point, it replaces quality engagement with politics.
The politics section ceases to have a point and the community overloaded with casual rants turning into low quality discussion.
Hiding the lounge might have an impact on this, if it stops people getting pulled into discussing politics in the lounge. I guess my point is I don't think a community can say: "Well, this is a casual area. People don't have to make an effort." The community may use leeway in casual areas and find themselves only in a forest of low quality. How and the extent to which people use casual areas impacts on the community.
My thoughts were more directed at the specific context. Yes, it's great to have an area where people can make causal comments about politics, but what happens when all the politics or major politics happens in the lounge, including discussions which would involve a context which is going in-depth? People shouldn't be able to circumvent certain standards regarding political posting just by taking a discussion to a casual area.
The point of taking it to the Lounge was to take it away from the more serious political discussions due to the nature of its OP. Have you read the OP? Anyway, it had become too dominant, but that was more by accident than design, and it's more the exception than the rule I think. As is Trump himself.
I guess my point is I don't think a community can say: "Well, this is a casual area. People don't have to make an effort." The community may use leeway in casual areas and find themselves only in a forest of low quality.
I think the community can say that though. That's the whole point of having a casual social-orientated area. The official description of the Lounge is somewhere you can have a "blether about kittens" (or rant about Donald Trump), and that's how it should be. But it's precisely the issue of the casual becoming too dominant on the front page (and in poster's minds) that you raise here that is the reason we've tried to deemphasise it a bit. So, give it a little time and then let us know what you think.
I can see why Paul would stop frequenting the site. The nasty nature of the destruction of the older site and change over to this one must have been hard on him but I am very glad that he appears to have received a duly deserved financial reward for all his work.
IIRC he hadn't been active on the old site in the last years before its demise, usually emerging into the public view to put out some fire.
That's an understandable point, but finding say, the shout box or the Donald Trump thread, etc. via mobile is fairly torturous
@Sapientia
I've moved the Lounge up the categories list, so you don't have to scroll after selecting categories on mobile (or on PC to see the full sidebar). Does that help?
No worries. Probably if we changed the name of the lounge to "The Secret Space" or something mysterious sounding, nobody would mind its discussions not being on the front page and would rush there to partake of its enigmatic ambience. Thinking aloud here..
Reply to Baden Well, actually, when you think about it, there's no need to. Would you want your lounge exposed in public, or would you prefer some privacy?
Oh I know, I got it first hand. He's trying though. At this point, I'm happy with such baby steps. Beats doing "truth" or "concepts aren't a thing" again.
I've moved the Lounge up the categories list, so you don't have to scroll after selecting categories on mobile (or on PC to see the full sidebar). Does that help?
Yes, Thank you. It is a tremendous help when using a mobile.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 20, 2018 at 12:12#2070880 likes
All 11 discussions I have greatly enjoyed starting on TPF were created in The Lounge which no longer appear on the main page since all but one thread are community focused in nature. I have attempted to bring our community together through positive threads and although they are not dissecting the study of Philosophy, I would like to think at least one or two of my threads have had a positive impact on our community as a whole.
Having said that, it is what it is.
I will just kindly ask the administrations consideration, of finding a place for the #MeToo thread, to be moved in with the other Philosophy categories. If it is possible, I would appreciate it.
Don't feel like your work has gone to waste. I too am saddened by removing many enjoyable threads to the lounge. But, as you neatly said, it is what it is, and I can still carry on.
Reply to Posty McPostface I could be wrong but I don't think Tiff was talking about discussions that have been moved to the Lounge. Discussions are moved to the Lounge if that's where they fit. What's the problem?
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 20, 2018 at 12:21#2070920 likes
Don't feel like your work has gone to waste. I too am saddened by removing many enjoyable threads to the lounge. But, as you neatly said, it is what it is, and I can still carry on.
Yeah, it is just shitty timing because I have really come to love the members of the community here. :broken:
I could be wrong but I don't think Tiff was talking about discussions that have been moved to the Lounge. Discussions are moved to the Lounge if that's where they fit. What's the problem?
jamalrob, I started my discussions in The Lounge, I don't know that any one of my threads has been moved. I am just asking for the consideration of the #MeToo discussion I started to be moved out of the lounge into a Philosophical category so it can be found if ever the topic comes up again.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 20, 2018 at 12:28#2070990 likes
The only regularly active discussion of yours I know of is "Welcome to TPF". I've moved that into "About TPF", so that it can be seen on the front page as I think it's a nice morale booster and helps to give a welcoming feel to the site. As long as @jamalrob doesn't mind, it can stay there.
A lot of us probably spend too much time on politics, discussions of which tend to be more contentious and less charitable than other areas. But what do you suggest we change about the site in terms of policy to deal with that (other than what we've done)?
I think the word “politics” derives from Greek polis or city. But with each passing day, the word politics resembles the word polemics more and more. A purely intellectual and theoretical discussion of the current political landscape may be rare, if not impossible. And if it were possible, would it be relevant? If relevant, would it put us all to sleep?
Sure, but if we called it, say, "The Marquis de Sade's Den of Iniquity", would that not lend the site a certain Je ne sais quoi?.
:sweat: Ha! Instead of bannings, there could be spankings of an interesting nature! Would @Hanover volunteer to [s]dominate[/s]... er, moderate? :wink:
Probably if we changed the name of the lounge to "The Secret Space" or something mysterious sounding, nobody would mind its discussions not being on the front page and would rush there to partake of its enigmatic ambience. Thinking aloud here..
As you probably know, there are some other forums that have a minimum number of posts required to view certain areas or threads... which are supposedly safe from search engines, and probably contains NSFW videos of spankings in Spandex.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 20, 2018 at 12:45#2071070 likes
He is doing wonderfully Paul. I can pass on a message to him for you or if you want, you can send him a PM here Paul and I will nudge him to check in on his messages here. :flower:
jamalrob, I started my discussions in The Lounge, I don't know that any one of my threads has been moved. I am just asking for the consideration of the #MeToo discussion I started to be moved out of the lounge into a Philosophical category so it can be found if ever the topic comes up again.
I did a little experiment. Some might be aware of this already, but it appears that it is possible to move a thread from one category to another IF one is the thread starter. Just edit the OP, and choose a different category. I moved an old thread I started into The Lounge to see if it was possible. Maybe that is helpful now that there is a larger difference between Lounge and Philosophical threads.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 23, 2018 at 13:12#2075480 likes
I did a little experiment. Some might be aware of this already, but it appears that it is possible to move a thread from one category to another IF one is the thread starter. Just edit the OP, and choose a different category. I moved an old thread I started into The Lounge to see if it was possible. Maybe that is helpful now that there is a larger difference between Lounge and Philosophical threads
I appreciate your letting me know how to go about it myself, Thank you.
Since I was working with an administrator about the movement of the #MeToo thread and it still remains in the Lounge, I have to go with the idea that it is in where the administration believes it properly should be.
I disagree with the decision to leave such an important topic in the Lounge but I made the request and that is the best I can do. :up:
Comments (123)
We're the upper middle brow of internet disagreement also due to something of a social contract present on the site, enforced by the mods, which reprimands people treating it more like youtube comments and less like an exchange of letters and essays, though we have a lower standard of minimum quality or relevance than other academic interest forums. This is mostly due to philosophy itself being broad in content.
While which topics are treated and presented here, and how they are treated, tracks their representation in the internet attention economy outside of the forum quite well, the coupling of the power of content with the attention it generates and its propagation rate is diminished. This is a good thing, we all have a responsibility to the discourse here to make sure that it's not just a vector from crap to crap.
A consequence of this partial decoupling from the larger attention economy is that the forum looks somewhat like a 'free marketplace of ideas', and people will hold dear to the liberal trope that no expressions should be censored. To use the stereotypes, it can appear that we're sitting behind the screens like mini neckbearded Voltaires against the moderating cabal of cryptofascist cultural Marxists.
This makes moderating the site contentious at times, because it is actually pretty popular for an academic interest discussion forum and what makes it so is higher quality requirements and the mods' resisting the medium's natural tendency toward shitposting and meme-to-meme combat. So moderating policy also has to contain an element of attention economy management, this keeps things on topic and stops the forum being co-opted by special interest groups. Somewhat ironically, this is what makes it an island of free and reasoned expression amidst the sea of piss which is internet debate.
I wonder to what extent you think this reflects changes in the internet itself. Perhaps I have an excessively nostalgic memory of the past, but the old version of this site struck me as far more interested in sophisticated and complex discussions. Very vaguely (since I always lurked but never posted), I remember learning a lot from a Pitt grad student with a Bertrand Russell avatar and a Thai (?) Marxist at Ohio State who made a lot of insightful comments about politics. We have some of those here (Streetlight!), but it seems to me the quality of discussion is not what it was on the old site (e.g. politics discussions between members like Maw and Augustino are vaguely interesting but not hugely illuminating) and there is little to no interest in academic philosophy. (No one discussing even major contemporary figures like Brandom, Ranciere, Noe, let alone serious current scholarship in semantics or QT.)
I am still massively enjoying this site, but it strikes me that this shift says more about the changing dynamics of the internet than the members or organization of this site. Petty political squabbling, shitposting, memes, emojis, etc. just seem to have been integrating into the practices of online communication in a way that's profoundly cheapened the conversation over the last decade.
Perhaps I am wrong on this?
No, you seem to be spot on. I think it's due to the structure of this forum, though. The other forum was more organized in terms of keeping discussions in the proper subforums. Here everything is packed into one page, and hence, you get various inputs and thoughts. I don't really think the moderating team made a huge influence; but, we did have a Ph.D. in philosophy as an admin on the previous website. The final authority that was, Paul was also pretty darn sophisticated in the art of philosophy, so he had some idea on how to gear the forum towards higher standards. Timothy was a moderator, as were some other grad students or undergrad students.
I remiss about the higher standards; but, what has been done cannot be undone. So, I make the best I can out of this forum.
We lost a lot of members who were actively engaged in philosophy. I don't think that's all the forum's fault, it seems just as likely to me that they moved on in their lives. Either to philpapers or away from the study. I don't remember much discussion of contemporary philosophy on the old site, proportionally anyway.
Having been an admod on both sites, I don't see any evidence standards were higher on old PF. There was no golden age in my view. There may be some difference as there is over time regardless of site as posters come and go, but I think what you are noticing is largely the effect of the default front page where more active and faster moving discussions dominate, and those are often the Shoutbox or political, and it's worth looking at doing something about that (it's possible to change the default view to categories rather than recent posts, for example). But certainly there is no greater tolerance for low quality posts here than there was on the old site, and there is no sudden drop in the philosophical skills of internet denizens. My take anyway.
Quoting Posty McPostface
That is one area where the old site had an advantage albeit a limited one as it was rare to get much engagement from guests. I remember Searle for example refused to post more than one reply in any discussion. Still though, I'm glad you brought it up as it's a line worth pursuing.
Anyway, I've split this into a new discussion in the hope that you and others can make specific suggestions for improving the site's quality, particularly in terms of encouraging a higher level of philosophical engagement. Maybe we have been too laissez-faire in that respect.
Certainly, I did not mean to imply either that this site tolerates more low quality posts or that the folks on the new site are less interesting, sophisticated, intelligent, etc. than before. I think that my feeling - subjective, idiosyncratic, anecdotal - is that the way each of us communicates on internet forums like this has become less sophisticated over time. There's something different about how a site like this functions as a quasi-public space in 2018 as opposed to 2010 and I'm as "guilty" of this as anyone else.
Of course, this may be my falling into a tired reactionary trope, but it feels as though the rise of a certain modality of the internet in the 2010s - related to the colonizing of spaces and practices we find in Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. -- has made us all slightly more glib and contentious than we were before.
Could we run a trial of this feature if others agree to it? I would like to see how discussions evolve under that feature...
Tell you what, I'll stick a poll up later today. Final decision will be down to @jamalrob, but it will be worth gauging opinion. I am leaning towards thinking it's a good idea.
It'll be less work for you guys at the least, as it tends to promote self moderation by picking a subforum to post in and sticking to whether it's epistemological, metaphysical, ethics, or what have you.
Thanks. :ok:
You could be right and maybe it's something we all need to be aware of and push back against more.
I tend to agree. It's tempting to jump in without much forethought the way things are at the minute.
I don't feel as though the site needs improvements in moderation. I didn't mean to imply that, so sorry if that came off that way. I just feel that we're approaching critical mass, where topics are pushed down the feed due to a sheet amount of posts being made at once. I also think a "newbie" subcategory or subforum would be pertinent if the plan gets realized as we have an abundance of newbie posts about philosophy, knowledge, belief, metaphysics. They tend to gets recycled by new members all the time in terms of making the same posts all the time.
No worries. Appreciate all the good suggestions. Keep them coming.
I think you have both zeroed in on perhaps the biggest problem and are right to try and bring the issue wider awareness. My guess is that the current set-up is cleaner, nicer and more accessible but also corrosive of discourse.
Just as, for example, the previous system of upvotes/downvotes was fun but also cheapened discourse.
Sorry to come around to this a little late, but was Timothy the Pitt grad student? I know a lot of people at Pitt and I've always wanted to find out who it was I learned a lot from but it's a weird question to go around asking people.
Also, I'm really disappointed to discover that Paul is not Bitter Crank, which I thought for whatever reason was the case. I'm actually a bit fuzzy on the transition to this site. What happened to Paul? Why the change?
Quoting Posty McPostface
I remember those posts well. I suspect that nowadays it would be a lot harder to get philosophers to do an AMA on a place like this since they'd rather go to something large like "Partially Examined Life" or Reddit. That's IMO part of the corrosive, changing dynamics of the internet.
Maybe one thing you guys might think about is asking younger Tenure-Track or even Grad Students on the job market to consider coming on here to present their work. I think they might like the exposure and interest, which is always hard to come by. They're also less prone to be divas and more likely to engage than, well, certain prominent philosophers.
According to what you said about him having the Bertrand Russell avatar, and being a mod, then yes that seems to be him. There was also a guy named sheps, who was also pretty knowledgeable about philosophy, although I think he had a degree in law.
Paul is still here, although he checks in rather sporadically.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/50/paul
Quoting John Doe
Yeah, the larger things get the messier they become. I don't know anything about the evolution of the internet, though. Interesting topic though...
Quoting John Doe
That sounds like an interesting idea. I wouldn't be able to contribute; but, it would definitely raise the quality or standard of posts due to the influx of professional philosophers.
That is fuzzy. :) Short version: Paul, after selling PF to someone called Porat, who turned out to be a shyster, stayed on the mod team of the old site until it went down. Those of us who didn't trust Porat left immediately and set this one up (luckily jamalrob had the know how). Paul never migrated over here though most of the other regulars, including mods, did.
Isn't this Paul?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/50/paul
He registered and posted a couple of times, but he didn't migrate as in post regularly.
Yes, true. Anyway, I don't think anything productive can be said about the old PF. What happened happened, and unless I win the lotto, I can't buy out the old database and revive the old forum. So, I'm satisfied with what's happening here.
It's time for me to sleep, but I really do hope you implement the small change you talked about in terms of having categories define where posts get posted. Just as a matter of trial and error I suppose. The thing is that if it happens or works out, then there's no going back to this format, so yeah.
I think it's a good idea (and it can be changed any time actually). Just out at the moment, but will put a poll up later. Final decision will then be down to jamalrob.
From what I am reading it looks like Paul got paid handsomely and the site remained completely in tact (in this version) despite some drama, so I think everybody wins.
I can see why Paul would stop frequenting the site. The nasty nature of the destruction of the older site and change over to this one must have been hard on him but I am very glad that he appears to have received a duly deserved financial reward for all his work.
In any case, there's this very interesting post from Paul:
Quoting Paul
Lacking a better mentor, Trump will have to teach us all until september.
Quoting John Doe
What is wrong with emojis? :cool:
Yes. And it wasn't his fault. Just picked the wrong guy to sell to.
@Baden, is this something that can be done automatically for everyone? Maybe with any other “low quality” categories?
Actually, yes, now that I've had a poke around under the hood. I've just given it a test run. That may be a good solution to keeping the Shoutbox in particular more low profile. Thanks.
The old forum had that page as well, and it's really the only one I used ("New Posts" I think it was called). The difference here is that I made that page the home page, that's all. Anyway, see the breakaway discussion for my opinion about the home page.
@John Doe's comments are a good case in point. I found myself going along with his analysis almost entirely in general, until he provided his example (Steelight). Personally, I find Streetlight's posts to be mostly nothing but either pomo mumbo jumbo, or posts arrogantly dismissing other threads (usually on the grounds that they're not pomo mumbo jumbo). No offence, of course, there's noting intrinsically wrong with that. This, though, is the problem with trying to 'improve' the quality of posts somehow. Unless we have a widely approved definition of 'quality' we have no target to aim for and any attempt will just be personal bias. Personally, for example, I'd shut down any post which uses the word 'narrative' more than is strictly necessary and posts which have more than three words prefixed with 'post-' or (worst of all) 'neo-' would be similarly expunged.
So, for what it's worth, I'm all in favour of removing the Lounge from the main page (I have my main page set that way anyway and never post there), but if there's any further move to try and improve post "quality", I'd like to put in an early request to ensure that 'quality' and 'quoting extensively from that latest fashionable philosopher' are not confused.
This discussion is not intended to be a debate on any particular poster. If it were, and that poster was Street, I'd say he's one of our best. But it's not, so let's try to keep this about general ways to improve the site. All feedback on that welcome. Future personal criticisms of posters will be deleted as will any posts not about site improvements. This is intended as a constructive rather than a contentious discussion.
Really? You'd go back to that inferior quoting system and drafts that aren't saved automatically? Also, in hindsight, those internal comments and the rating system were bloody awful, and we're much better off without them, although they could be removed.
My post was intended to be entirely about ways to improve the site, or rather a warning about not going to far in certain directions. The fact that it contained a (very mild) jibe at the philosophy of a particular poster is wholly in keeping with a huge proportion of the posts on this site and if you're now deeming some of them to be so intolerable as to warrant deletion if repeated, then I think that the personal bias I feared in dictating which posts are acceptable and which are not is already here.
Politics does dominate here and I can't recall if that were the case before. As noted, current academic trends are not discussed, but maybe those with such knowledge could start such discussions and move us in that direction. Again, though, different software formatting might even help for that.
I make the software modification suggestion with no understanding of the cost, labor, or complications involved, so I don't want to appear naive in that regard or act like it's a simple and obvious thing to do, but that's what I note as the major difference. This is not to say I don't find some real advantages in this site over the last (which I do), but I'm offering constructive criticism here in order to make the web's best philosophy site better.
Losing all posts and user accounts.
Voting for categories as a default homepage would go some way to making it organized similarly to old PF.
He is doing wonderfully Paul. I can pass on a message to him for you or if you want, you can send him a PM here @Paul and I will nudge him to check in on his messages here. :flower:
I second this suggestion.
It's a good idea, isn't it? I don't know why we didn't think of it before. :smirk:
I second this suggestion. I'm seconding your second, not thirding Sapientia's first that you firstly seconded.
Here.
Discussions from the Lounge no longer show on the front page. You have to click through to the Lounge category to see them.
Oh, I thought we were just voicing our opinions.
Well you're not! You're oppressing my freedom! :razz:
Freedom away. :blush:
Indeed. Good point. I actually changed my mind due to the latest posts not being able to be seen under the category format. So, this works with the lounge excluded from the main view of the homepage.
Life is hard. :groan:
Yes, but even at a total of three, it appears to not be enough to keep the change from happening that way.
I am also with timw and BC, don't fix what ain't broke.
I expect it will stay as is with the change in place for the foreseeable. I have swapped the category positions of the Lounge and Feedback though, as you suggested above, to make the former a bit more highlighted (and it seems more logical to me anyway). Hope this is some compensation. Overall the change is relatively minor, and I'm sure everyone will get used to it (except @Sapientia who's just a little crybaby).
Unfortunately, that minor irrationality is baked in as far as I can see. Let's charitably call it a quirk and hope no-one notices.
I've added the following though to the welcome message for new members:
Please note: Lounge category posts are not included on the default front page, but you can navigate there using the sidebar.
I appreciate your consideration and Thank you for the swap but please don't do it just for "compensation" sake.
Quoting Baden
I am just going to roll with it. I will say that over the years at PF as well as TPF, the movement and health of conversation in the shoutbox has been a pretty good indicator as to the health of the forum.
It did not go without notice that recently (since TL was banned) for whatever reason the moderators and admins were suddenly not nearly as active in the shoutbox, to which I can only guess was a 'tone down the interaction in the 'shoutbox' suggestion.
My real sticking point is that if members here, which we all are, cannot keep control over their participation in a thread like the "Trump" thread, that is their problem, not mine, nor the forums' as a whole. That was the logic applied to me.
It would seem as though the suggestion/request of management to me, on my interaction with other member(s)on the 'Gun Control' thread, was to just ignore the member(s) if I remain in attendance of the thread. I complied with the request and stopped interaction.
Why is that logic not being applied to those who cannot/or don't want to control their interaction on a political thread?
A "chat room" is an interesting characterization of any thread other than the 'ShoutBox' thread.
I think I understand what is trying to be achieved and I just am wary of pulling that community thread back so far, that it snaps and the unraveling of the sense of community begins.
Edit: although looks like it doesn't show on mobile. That's inconvenient.
We didn't initiate the idea of changing. That came from members. We responded by polling and making suggestions, and that process led here. The community as a whole are apparently for change. It just happens it syncs with thoughts we've had for a long time concerning the dominance of the Shoutbox.
You are missing out the feedback of why good, decent, long term forum members are leaving the forum. The more that happens, the more homogenous in thought the forum will become.
Can you quote the part of your post that explains that? As far as I can see, no matter what we do on this some people are going to like it and some are going to not like it. I don't see it causing a mass exodus either way.
Yes, I think it would be more graceful to do so in private. Allow me to take care of reality for a couple days and I will get back to you and we can pow wow if you wish.
OK, I know you really have a lot on your plate at the moment.
As someone who has greatly reduced my participation (for various reasons), I feel quality issues are coming more from the interests and behaviour from many people in the community (some old and some new). I do think things like the prominence of the shoutbox might have some effect on which discussions users are pulled into, but I feel most of it would come from an interest in arguing rather than learning philosophy.
Particularly, I feel lot of people don't have a respect someone else might be saying something knowledgable. People frequently start off in the wrong foot of trying to "debate" or prove something, instead of trying to understand.
I don't think this is necessarily an issue with an open forum. Its an inevitable aspect of being a community welcoming to everyone. PF had the same sort of issues, even at it peak. The counter is of knowledgable, generous posters interested who can from good discussions and bring other people along. This is what I think is really missing at the moment. A lot of regulars are spending a great deal chatting about politics, for example. Or they are not generous with or interested in topics which fall outside what they already know (props to Banno for breaking out of his usual patterns with that gender thread).
A certain lack of quality, I feel, is coming for either complacency, self-absorption or just a lack of interest from regular members. Distraction of shoutboxes and lounges might be a thing, but I think most issues are going to be coming form the interests and behaviour of regulars.
A lot of us probably spend too much time on politics, discussions of which tend to be more contentious and less charitable than other areas. But what do you suggest we change about the site in terms of policy to deal with that (other than what we've done)?
Agreed. After exploring academic philosophy blogs for awhile in the hopes of finding higher ground, I've come away with the impression that academic philosophy is really more about the philosophy BUSINESS than it is about philosophy itself, and that there are significant conflicts between the agendas of business and philosophy.
Academics excel at creating polished presentations, but when it come to the quality of thinking, I see little improvement over what can be found on a general public philosophy forum like this one.
I'm not sure how much policy can effect that. Unless you outright ban politics or limit it daily discussion (which users will definitely not appreciate, I suspect), I think you might be stuck with people taking responsibility for what they are discussing.
It depends how much of the political activity is being driven by the terrible quality posts I guess. I do think moderation in the political discussions has been week. People have been allowed to get away with absurdly poor quality one/few liners, insults, personal attacks etc. in the political discussions. I understand wanting to give people leeway when passions run high (or when talking about an ethical terrible person or politics), but great streams of the political discussion seem to fall into that category. I mean like half the Trump thread (at the very least it feels like it), for example, would probably have been deleted for "low post quality" at PF.
Quite a bit of it seems to be coming from the regulars too. I think the forum could demand a great deal more effort from people when discussing politics. I just don't know whether that would translate into interest and higher quality in other discussions. People might just get angry they cannot throw out few line rant or attacks about politics and otherwise carry on the same.
*edit*
I just realised I used the wrong initials for PhilosophyForums, corrected.
I suspect they meant "academic" in the sense of having knowledge, study, understanding of philosophical topics. What does it look like in terms of philosophy? Usually, it means a change in the direction of philosophical questions and answers. Aside from knowing philosophical contexts and tradition, it usually means a move away from philosophy done on a basis of questions/speculation/ "prove" (e.g. "Is the world is real or not? Where the proof he world is not an illusion?) into one focused on understanding a particular truth or topic (e.g. "This is what we know." "This philosophy was saying X and it relates to these other ideas in Y way," etc.).
In terms of philosophical discussion itself, it does make a huge difference. Having studied your topic and understood it to a higher degree than others really does matter.
The Trump discussion is in the lounge not in politics for a reason, and it's contextualised by its OP like all discussions. So, it's not against the rules to rant about Trump there. However, we've just made it a lot easier to avoid, which is probably a good thing. And though, given its context, its unlikely we're going to mod it any more harshly, some of us *ahem* are realizing the pointlessness of going on about Trump and will be directing our energies elsewhere.
Yes, I suspected that. A distinction between a casual discussion area and in-depth posting is fine.
My thoughts were more directed at the specific context. Yes, it's great to have an area where people can make causal comments about politics, but what happens when all the politics or major politics happens in the lounge, including discussions which would involve a context which is going in-depth? People shouldn't be able to circumvent certain standards regarding political posting just by taking a discussion to a casual area. At the point, it replaces quality engagement with politics.
The politics section ceases to have a point and the community overloaded with casual rants turning into low quality discussion.
Hiding the lounge might have an impact on this, if it stops people getting pulled into discussing politics in the lounge. I guess my point is I don't think a community can say: "Well, this is a casual area. People don't have to make an effort." The community may use leeway in casual areas and find themselves only in a forest of low quality. How and the extent to which people use casual areas impacts on the community.
The point of taking it to the Lounge was to take it away from the more serious political discussions due to the nature of its OP. Have you read the OP? Anyway, it had become too dominant, but that was more by accident than design, and it's more the exception than the rule I think. As is Trump himself.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
That's the idea.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I think the community can say that though. That's the whole point of having a casual social-orientated area. The official description of the Lounge is somewhere you can have a "blether about kittens" (or rant about Donald Trump), and that's how it should be. But it's precisely the issue of the casual becoming too dominant on the front page (and in poster's minds) that you raise here that is the reason we've tried to deemphasise it a bit. So, give it a little time and then let us know what you think.
IIRC he hadn't been active on the old site in the last years before its demise, usually emerging into the public view to put out some fire.
I've moved the Lounge up the categories list, so you don't have to scroll after selecting categories on mobile (or on PC to see the full sidebar). Does that help?
Ha! I just spat my coffee out. If he has done so, it must have only been a temporary thing. His usual patterns are alive and well in that discussion.
No worries. Probably if we changed the name of the lounge to "The Secret Space" or something mysterious sounding, nobody would mind its discussions not being on the front page and would rush there to partake of its enigmatic ambience. Thinking aloud here..
He's nothing if not Bannoistic.
Sure, but if we called it, say, "The Marquis de Sade's Den of Iniquity", would that not lend the site a certain Je ne sais quoi?.
I would prefer Bannotastic.
Oh I know, I got it first hand. He's trying though. At this point, I'm happy with such baby steps. Beats doing "truth" or "concepts aren't a thing" again.
You've got my vote. Do it.
Yes, Thank you. It is a tremendous help when using a mobile.
Having said that, it is what it is.
I will just kindly ask the administrations consideration, of finding a place for the #MeToo thread, to be moved in with the other Philosophy categories. If it is possible, I would appreciate it.
Don't feel like your work has gone to waste. I too am saddened by removing many enjoyable threads to the lounge. But, as you neatly said, it is what it is, and I can still carry on.
Best regards, Tiff.
Yeah, it is just shitty timing because I have really come to love the members of the community here. :broken:
Sorry, I meant to say placed away from the home page, as was done recently.
They wouldn't appear on the default front page unless they were active anyway, Tiff, and #metoo isn't. Moving it will have no effect at the moment.
jamalrob, I started my discussions in The Lounge, I don't know that any one of my threads has been moved. I am just asking for the consideration of the #MeToo discussion I started to be moved out of the lounge into a Philosophical category so it can be found if ever the topic comes up again.
Thank you for the consideration.
The only regularly active discussion of yours I know of is "Welcome to TPF". I've moved that into "About TPF", so that it can be seen on the front page as I think it's a nice morale booster and helps to give a welcoming feel to the site. As long as @jamalrob doesn't mind, it can stay there.
OK, I think it can find a place for it.
I think the word “politics” derives from Greek polis or city. But with each passing day, the word politics resembles the word polemics more and more. A purely intellectual and theoretical discussion of the current political landscape may be rare, if not impossible. And if it were possible, would it be relevant? If relevant, would it put us all to sleep?
Quoting Baden
:sweat: Ha! Instead of bannings, there could be spankings of an interesting nature! Would @Hanover volunteer to [s]dominate[/s]... er, moderate? :wink:
Quoting Baden
As you probably know, there are some other forums that have a minimum number of posts required to view certain areas or threads... which are supposedly safe from search engines, and probably contains NSFW videos of spankings in Spandex.
Baden, I appreciate all your efforts. Thank you.
No problem. :up:
*Shudder* :scream:
Incidentally, this is just the sort of thread that belongs in the lounge (if it belongs anywhere), and not on the front page.
Moved.
:up:
Thanks, Tiff. Yes, if you could tell him. :smile:
Oh, OK then. There better be some tea and scones afterwards... *grumble*
Absolutely Caldwell! I will! :flower:
I did a little experiment. Some might be aware of this already, but it appears that it is possible to move a thread from one category to another IF one is the thread starter. Just edit the OP, and choose a different category. I moved an old thread I started into The Lounge to see if it was possible. Maybe that is helpful now that there is a larger difference between Lounge and Philosophical threads.
I appreciate your letting me know how to go about it myself, Thank you.
Quoting Baden
Since I was working with an administrator about the movement of the #MeToo thread and it still remains in the Lounge, I have to go with the idea that it is in where the administration believes it properly should be.
I disagree with the decision to leave such an important topic in the Lounge but I made the request and that is the best I can do. :up:
Actually, there are two #Metoo threads, and the administration (me) got them mixed up. Your one is in politics and current affairs now.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2648/metoo/p1
No worries, Thank you for the movement of the thread.
:up: