Who is the owner of this forum...
...and how does one contact him/her about a problem?
I'd also like to know who the moderators are...so that I can understand if some comments being made to me are from a moderator...or just someone shooting off his/her mouth.
I'd also like to know who the moderators are...so that I can understand if some comments being made to me are from a moderator...or just someone shooting off his/her mouth.
Comments (51)
Staff: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/members/staff
Owner: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/1/jamalrob
The complaint here is that he didn't take too kindly to my objection to his spamming.
List of staff, including who is online, the little face in the top right corner of our poster icons indicates that we are staff. @jamalrob is the owner and has been summoned to the thread.
If your issue concerns treatment from other members, including mods, you are free to personal message any mod and we can try and deal with whatever interpersonal problem that there is.
Thank you, Drake.
No need to make a big thing of this. The individual "S" has on two occasions accused me of spamming the forum.
I would not do that under any circumstances.
In one instance, S made a threat about banning.
Since I did not know who are the chiefs and who are the Indians, I got hot. Very hot, in fact, Apologized once...and then got hit with another "spamming" comment.
I thought it might be the owner or a moderator...and I was willing to leave the forum if unwelcome.
I'll calm down now...and just ignore S.
I will do my best to be a decent contributor.
If you and someone don't get along on here it's usually best to ignore them.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Thanks.
I had a look at the discussion between you and @S, just looks like it got heated. There were parts of your posts of questionable relevance to the discussion topics, which S reacted to with the spam accusation. If I've read it right with my skim read anyway.
Doesn't seem like much of a scene is required, it's not like you merc'd each other in a rap beef fam.
What he means is that he wouldn't do so with the realisation that it is spamming.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I explained that it wasn't a threat. That's just his misinterpretation. It was a warning, as in an advisement of precaution. It wouldn't make sense for me to threaten him with something not within my power, and knowingly so.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes, he got another comment about spamming because he repeated the spam, and I am not exactly the type to be silenced if I object to something.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Wait. Am I being referred to as an "it"? :lol:
I know I'm far from perfect, but I don't spam like that. Those posts are very much a pattern, and they are a problem in my assessment. I don't think that I'm alone in making that assessment.
Really, he should be thanking me for pointing out this problem, so that he has an opportunity to do something about it. But I understand that it's very hard to be thankful under the circumstances.
Moderators can not infect you with diseases on line. In person might be another story.
Hygenia has not been approved by the FDA.
:rofl:
Yes, humans are known for taking criticism well and admitting to fault. Especially on the internet.
Yes, a fine example of tact and diplomacy.
What would be considered spamming? Is it the strictest, bot style spamming that is not acceptable, or would just repeating the same argument with a slightly different spin ad naeseum get moderator attention?
Im new to the Forum and have been put off by certain members who espouse at length the same pet theory or philosophy over and over either in their own new threads (pretending its a different topic) or by trying to muscle its relevancy in any given topic.
I would like to know if it could be reported so it is addressed.
And anything can be reported through the flagging button (bottom left-hand corner of a comment, then click the one that looks like a flag) or by other means, such as contacting a member of staff.
Not very helpful. To the former, is that not what the discourse is? To convince another person with your compelling reasons or argument? The latter is the catagory I would like to have specified. Sounds just like the bot style spamming is whats indicated.
As S. said.
Personal view of it:
Some cases of spam are really easy to classify, some are just benign but largely inarticulate and irrelevant posts, sometimes it's difficult to see if someone is intentionally spamming and derailing threads or if they're just bad at English or have a particularly fire and brimstone inducing perspective. This applies to Christian evangelists as much as it applied to a (relatively) recent case of an incredibly angry post-colonial critical theory poster.
I don't think we punish people for having strong opinions or approaching philosophy from an entrenched perspective. There have been times where we have banned easy to anger hawkers of pseudoscientific woo, but we also often don't clamp down hard on woo or misinformed posters because, well, the minimum standard of scientific competence should probably be lower here than on physicsforums or stackexchange.
All in all, you're probably not going to get a clearcut definition of spamming or evangelism which sorts posts and posters into the right categories 100% guarantee every time; partly because it's not necessary for staff to effectively curate content, and partly because doing such a thing is an exercise in futility.
If you can give us a perfect definition of spam or evangelism as it is relevant to moderating the board, I'm all ears though.
Alas, I cannot.
In lieu of there being a perfect definition, I suggest we continue bodging along as we always do.
Indeed, I just wanted to know if what was annoying me was actually something I could report and have addressed.
Report anything you deem report worthy, we make the executive decision (we get an automatic prompt when there's stuff reported we've not made a ruling on).
:up:
I agree. If the wording can be improved, I say improve it. But don't look to me for that.
The occurrence of it is definitely a problem. There are at least a few members here who have literally just copy-pasted text or duplicated a previous comment. That's the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. I hope this discussion sends out the message that this sort of thing is [I]not[/I] okay.
Ive noticed that too and share the same hope. Or at least that this can be a thread to discuss it in.
Is he trying to brain wash us or what? Stop trying to push your pet theory all of the time. Some of us are getting sick to death of it. I know as a matter of certainty that I am just one of several who feel this way about this content.
Can we add "thought/belief" to the spam filter, please?
Are you referring to my comment or what I quoted? If the former, then where is your explanation? If the former, I think that's just a indication of bias against me. It's almost inevitable in any Feedback discussion that I participate in, that someone with a grudge against me - and there are plenty of those - will try to make it about me. My comment is an example of what we've been talking about, followed by a complaint. That's the substance. Your own comment does the same thing: example, followed by complaint.
The theme is, or has become, about spam. Nothing else. The kind of posts which look like they're largely copy-pasted over and again. And also, the kind of posts which go on about the same thing everywhere over and again, like the "thought/belief" thing, and like the "atheists and theists are just guessing" thing.
Thank you, Drake.
All I really wanted to know is whether the "warning" was coming from someone in authority...or just from someone inappropriately shooting of his/her mouth. I now know...and I appreciate the matter being resolved.
The agnostic type position I hold about questions involving the true nature of the REALITY of existence (in particular whether gods are are or are not involved) matters a great deal to me. I think recognition of "I do not know and cannot determine" is essential to reasonable discussion of the issues at hand here. But because the position of "I do not know" is so unpopular with the "it is most likely this/it is most likely that" crowd, it often is seen as a one-trick pony show.
It is not.
I will defend it as strongly as the guessers defend their position...and I will not have it dismissed out-of-hand as "spam"...at least not by someone regulating the forum.
Thanks to everyone else who replied for their comments and help.
:lol:
:rofl:
Oi, what u chattin', bruv? Only one of us be gettin' merc'd. An it ain't me, fam.
But, because our moderators (as we would expect of them) are moderate in their own actions, trolls can get away with a fair amount before significant action must be taken. Annoying though it is, we must just keep trying not to feed the trolls.
"Spam" is usually something which comes in your email. It refers to sending the same message to many different locales. Spam on forums would be a case of sending the same message to many different forums. That's why it's classed with advertising. Repeating the same thing over and over again on the same forum (pushing one's pet theory) is not "spam".
Why would you do that? Obviously I'm using the term in a looser sense than that.
(I posted the following in the Shoutbox, but since it is located in the suburbs of Siberia, I’ll repeat it for whatever it’s worth... ) Sometimes I wonder if it would help to have each discussion split into two parallel columns: the main discussion, and then the side commentary, jokes, and personal asides. In other words, the discussion on one side, and the doodles in the margins on the other. Off-topic comments (which are often interesting to some, perhaps distracting to others) would be sidelined rather than stumbled over or deleted. Probably not feasible with the forum software, just a marginal idea.
How many more times do we need to see the same point, with the same wording, as though we are encountering a bot that has been programmed to repeat the same actions, instead of a fellow human being with a brain instead of circuitry? It gives the impression of either some sort of mental disorder, or evangelism.
Any contributor who considers a particular fellow poster to be uninteresting, annoying, or irrelevant...has the option of disregarding that poster and his/her comments. Most adult participants do that in those situations.
But to play the scold (while pretending to be above that kind of thing)...and dispense officious warnings and repremands...is what jerks do instead.
My purpose with this thread was to determine if S was the site owner; a moderator issuing a warning; or a goddam jerk inappropriately shooting off his/her mouth.
I now know the answer to my question...so...everything has worked out fine.
You certainly haven't practised what you preach thus far. Indirectly calling me insults isn't really "being the adult" nor is it really ignoring me.
"Grow some balls!", "Fuck off!", and, "You're a goddamn jerk!", don't sound very adult-like to me.
You also have that very childish habit of using ALL-CAPS. Seriously, look at YouTube, for example. It comes across like an overly aggressive teenager.
I will even help you out some more:
Adding Emphasis Without Shouting (And Embarrassing Yourself)
I did that just to say that you're not talking about spam, you're talking about something else, and calling it spam. If you can't handle someone pushing their pet theory, I think a philosophy forum is not the place for you to be.
Quoting S
If the philosophy-types annoy you then what's with the self-punishment of hanging around The Philosophy Forum?
Fine, I'm talking about Gertrude, then. And that's a really lame response to a complaint about something considered detrimental to the quality of the forum. You could come back with that on just about anything. The problem is the problem, not that "I can't handle it". That's just silly. I'm handling it right now through the Feedback forum.
And trying to misrepresent the problem is a shallow and underhanded tactic. The problem is intolerably pushing that pet theory. Pushing it and pushing it and pushing it, shoving it down people's throats uninvited, littering the forum with it. The problem is that it is too repetitive, too stubborn, too oblivious. It is excessive.
I think you [I]know[/I] that that's a problem somewhere deep down, but because it's [i]me[/I] that's raising it, you very predictably turn up, just like the others, to express your disagreement with whatever I say, and to try to spin your own little narrative.
You're all so predictable.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why did Diogenes wander around with a lantern in broad daylight?
I agree that's a recurring issue on philosophy fora (is that the correct plural?). I'm not sure what the solution is though. Outright banning it seems like an improper impediment to free speech.
The only thing I can see as a viable tactic is to gently point out the repetitive behavior, and when that fails, move on and ignore the offenders.
I will admit that it's beyond frustrating, and hard to keep cool when you've been lured into a conversation with someone who turns out to be just repeating themselves over and over... which in turn leads you to being forced to repeat yourself....OR end the conversation.
If you believe someone is behaving badly, you can PM a mod and we'll look into it.
Thank you! :heart:
Some of the people doing the complaining about repetitive messages are the same people who themselves post repetitive thoughts.
The majority of issues being discussed here set that up.
"Is there a GOD (are there goes)?"
"Are there no gods?"
"Is the universe finite or infinite?"
There are really only so many answers possible...and ALL of them tend to be repeated...as are the rationals and rationalizations.
a) There are people who insist "YES" is the answer to one or more of these questions.
b) There are people who insist "NO" is the answer to one or more of these questions.
c) There are people who point out the difficulties of a "YES" or "NO" answer to any of these question...and who quietly, courteously, and helpfully suggest an "I do not know" response as being more logical and ethical.
ALL of these people give reasons for their answers.
Some of the complainers just do not like the (c) answer...or the reasons given. They tend to dismiss that answer...and complain the reasons given are repetitions...
...OFTEN while repeating their own "YES" or "NO" with repeated reasons.
Just sayin'!
There are a list of topics that draw people to philosophy, god/atheism, ethical problems like the trolley problem, solipsism. Even if you're personally bored of the discussions, this is still a space for people to play them out. Content's never an excuse to be rude, flame, etc. though everyone gets heated sometimes.
Are you talking about the professors of dogma? That you hate this activity and believe it to be "detrimental to the quality of the forum" is your own personal opinion. But the world is full of such professors, so having them here in the forum is a fair representation of the reality which we face throughout our lives
Quoting S
If you do not believe in the pet theories which are being shoved down your throat (dogmata), then identify the weaknesses, and attack those weaknesses, over and over again if necessary. You cannot expect dogma to be changed just by pointing out to the professor of that dogma that you do not like it. Otherwise you are free to ignore such professors, and read something else. Where's the problem?
*In an unusual turn of events*
Sapentia isn't a bad guy. He just likes being in the center of attention, quite desperately so...
You actually ignored the substance, and I suspect deliberately so, in order to very predictably attack me, because you have a grudge against me, largely because I speak my mind with little restraint, and that winds you up. There are quite a few people who have a grudge against me, and a few of them have predictably turned up to look for just about anything to disagree with me over, or to change the subject of any Feedback discussion to, "This is why I have a grudge against S".
What's [I]not[/I] useful about asking whether we can add "thought/belief" to the spam filter? It was an example of spam (or "Gertrude" for those who only want a semantic quibble)?
Why would you look for something "positive" in a complaint? It is a complaint, not a compliment.