On forum etiquette
I've been meaning to ask this question for some time, but since post quality has been recently raised as an issue, it reminded me to do so.
I find forums such as these quite useful to get a very wide picture of how different people hold ideas, and how that relates to any ideas of my own. To that end, posting and commenting on other people's posts is effective but only to a point. Once I've got the general idea of how others might respond to a particular idea or counter argument, the value to me in continuing to respond sometimes diminishes quite rapidly, depending, of course, on whom I'm discussing with.
I'd previously thought it bad form to not respond and got bogged down providing explanations to counter-arguments I'd really very little interest in simply out of concern for proper etiquette.
I know, for example that it would be frowned upon to start a thread only to read, but not respond to, the replies. Equally, however, there has to be some threshold at which it would be reasonable for me to stop responding, especially if the quality of the responses is (in my opinion) very low.
I wanted, therefore to ask those in charge, or anyone else interested, what they thought would be a reasonable threshold in this respect.
I find forums such as these quite useful to get a very wide picture of how different people hold ideas, and how that relates to any ideas of my own. To that end, posting and commenting on other people's posts is effective but only to a point. Once I've got the general idea of how others might respond to a particular idea or counter argument, the value to me in continuing to respond sometimes diminishes quite rapidly, depending, of course, on whom I'm discussing with.
I'd previously thought it bad form to not respond and got bogged down providing explanations to counter-arguments I'd really very little interest in simply out of concern for proper etiquette.
I know, for example that it would be frowned upon to start a thread only to read, but not respond to, the replies. Equally, however, there has to be some threshold at which it would be reasonable for me to stop responding, especially if the quality of the responses is (in my opinion) very low.
I wanted, therefore to ask those in charge, or anyone else interested, what they thought would be a reasonable threshold in this respect.
Comments (31)
I try not to disengage just because I think the other poster is lower quality at the time. Sometimes I've been surprised, and sometimes I'm just misreading, and it seems like a habit that would be too easy to get into. But it's not the sort of thing I view as rude from others. I understand that I may not be the most important thing on someone else's list of things to get to -- I'm just a random guy on the internet after all :D
And if I could add: there always will be a % of those whose responses are at times or always not worthy of you responding to. Even if the current % were banned for low quality posts, there would be an equal number of new members that fill up that empty spot. It is just the nature of a community.
I usually respond at least once if I am addressed in a serious thread, and to almost everyone in some way in my own threads, though not necessarily individually. Beyond that, it seems acceptable to please oneself, and engage only when/as-long-as it feels productive, or interesting or amusing.
Quoting unenlightened
So you say, but the empirical evidence has so far shown otherwise.
The Last Word
The number of people who come in here thinking they've proven some huge metaphysical point in only two paragraphs of dubitable axioms and erroneous inferences; the posturing of clearly very young men (~18-21) who are deeply frustrated that their brilliant ideas or interests are almost completely ignored, thinking that this says something about their genius over/against society rather than their own problematic interests; the way that certain threads are filled to like Page 63 with lots of awful posts along with interesting posts has given me a bit of a new perspective on how it feels to (for example) enter into Hegel scholarship; the fact that some big name posters get away with slightly shameful posts that would go ignored or have angered the mods if made by a new member due to having built up seniority and relationships reminds me a lot of tenure and academic networking.
In short, the way this place works as an institution reminds me so much of academic philosophy that it's (a) given me a new perspective on what's going on in academia; (b) got me suspecting that it's no accident that academic institutions run the way they do -- perhaps this is simply what happens when you throw a lot of people from different ages and life circumstances together to engage cooperatively in thinking about philosophy.
It's reasonable to stop responding whenever. Each of our posts and responses is meant to be a contribution to "philosophical" discussion. Making any such contribution does not obligate you to make future contributions.
It's expected that people come and go as they please which is an upshot of anonymous, public, and open discussion. People may wonder what prompted a conspicuous disappearance, but it would be irrational to consider it a breach of etiquette. Take it from a spectre and vagabond of the internet: if what you do post is worthwhile and has merit, you've already done enough.
That's a really interesting post. One of my main interests was (still is, in an amateur sense) in how people hold and defend ideas, and places like this are irreplaceable as a resource for that. What's interesting for me about what you're saying is that I see so many similarities between the young would-be geniuses and some of the more seasoned academics, in terms of the way in which beliefs are held. The more seasoned simply have better rhetorical skills.
The whole discussion about post quality (though I get the feeling that it's really not quite about what I first thought it was) reminds me of certain team meetings where everyone agrees collectively that there needs to be improvements only each individual is nodding along sagely without realising that all the others think the improvement needed is their immediate dismissal.
Whoa! I thought you were jorn doe and I was taken aback by some of your responses, in other threads because it just didn't seem like his kind of wording.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum John!
I am also interested in how people hold and defend ideas and came here with the expectation that I'd find all those great discussions and thoughts that the stuffy old out-of-touch academy stifles. That's in a vague, arrogant sense how I remember my brilliant "insights" from before I got wrapped up in and corrupted by an academic mindset. What I'm finding is that there's not much difference, and that what I'm remembering is almost certainly the arrogant tone of that youth which vastly underestimated others. Like, oh yeah, not that smart now but also not that smart then!
Quoting Pseudonym
This is one of the most informative threads on the site. It's (in my opinion so please nobody sue) absolute philosophical fluff couched in genius level posturing and it is all the more fascinating to see how effective that type of posturing is when it's going to work on total fluff. This might seem like an insult but it's certainly not, that guy has a 1000x my rhetorical skill and one's likely to be far more successful putting some philosophical meat on his skill than the other way around.
Quoting Pseudonym
:lol: These posts are therapy because you get to see your own stupidities and myopia reflected in others. It's a test of your strength to try and avoid the sad little ego telling you "Oh no! I don't do that!"
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Thanks for the welcome! Hope my prose isn't too awful then! :yikes:
Like this?
Having said that PF had a Politics sub forum that could only be accessed once you logged in which is also a possible option, software, and 100% agreement on permitting such a change.
Correction 2.9k replies to the Trump Thread.
It was a perfect example of @Banno taking the piss.
I know this goal of yours but I was refencing the actual content of the thread and it's closure.
I thought you were listening to "members"...
At least a light thread that wasn't so serious that inflective labels need be applied.
Q.E.D. :D
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I am.
Anything that will alleviate the tension would be bloody grand my friend
Political discussions tend to be tense and contentious, Tiff. That's their nature. If you choose to become involved, expect people to speak their mind. If you find that too stressful, just avoid them.
If he actually ever owned any Elton John records he would not be breaking them.
He would leave them as an inheritance for his grand children. By the time they grow up they will be worth more than anything else he will have left to leave them.
Yeah I know that is not what he was talking about but it was just the way he babbled it. "I've broken a lot of Elton John records"
https://philosophersguild.com/collections/trump/products/impeachmints
And to make sure that you don't contaminate yourselves with the bullshit wash your hands well with
https://philosophersguild.com/collections/trump/products/trumps-small-hand-soap
Have fun folks. :wink: