Reply to Baden Show me which rule I have transgressed?
Have I offended anyone. Have I been rude, disrespectful. These are my genuine held beliefs and you have the temerity to delete them?
I didn't see your OP, but the link explains moderation procedures, and @StreetlightX is a moderator. Here's some more info: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op
I will keep placing this Op until you throw me off this forum
I'd advise you to calm down and wait for further explanation from @StreetlightX (such as he feels appropriate to give) or we will have no choice but to ban you.
StreetlightDecember 10, 2019 at 13:20#3614600 likes
Without intending to be facetious, the posts were literal gibberish, a mix of pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy that could lead to only confused discussion. I'd be able to give a fuller engagement if there was an argument - or access to the posts, which I no longer do - but there wasn't one apart from a speculative word salad, and there's not much to say about that other than to point it out.
I'd be able to give a fuller engagement if there was an argument - or access to the posts, which I no longer do
I think it’s sad that it’s impossible to recover posts that the moderation deletes, something that seems to be gibberish to someone may be quite important to someone else, so there should be the possibility for the poster to at least have access for a while to their posts that were deleted so that they can at least save it for themselves. We can’t judge how important something is to someone without being them.
Also as a suggestion I believe one should have the opportunity to appeal the deletion of posts, for instance in this case his posts seem to have been deleted forever and no one has the ability to judge them anymore. I’m not saying your judgment was wrong, but respectfully it might have been, and now we have no way to find out.
As an admin, I have access to deleted posts and appeal is possible. But he's banned now, so no point digging them up.
StreetlightDecember 10, 2019 at 13:55#3614710 likes
Reply to leo The posts can be recovered by other mods, just not me. I'm much too low on the food chain.
Re: appeals, one of the issues is that the forum software just don't provide a good mechanism for it. It's something we'd like, but it's technically hard to implement.
Reply to StreetlightX If a category on the left-side menu called 'the trashcan' or some such was introduced, we would be able to peruse offending OPs and make our own minds up.
If a category on the left-side menu called 'the trashcan' or some such was introduced, we would be able to peruse offending OPs and make our own minds up.
We don't want posts that are worthy of deletion showing on the site. That's why we delete them.
StreetlightDecember 10, 2019 at 16:03#3615230 likes
Reply to Devans99 We had something similar to that in an older incarnation of the forum. It - the trash can - was a pretty horrible place filled with the most asinine content you can imagine. I thought it was an ugly sore on the forum, and I wouldn't be keen to introduce it here. But that's just my opinion. The other mods and admins may feel differently (edit: not michael apparently!).
god must be atheistDecember 10, 2019 at 16:37#3615400 likes
The trash can was the Auschwitz of forum posts. Gnashing of teeth, a sea of burning sulphur. Souls living in eternal suffering. Those who got out of there alive, bore a frighteningly dark, tremendous scar on their souls for the rest of their lives.
god must be atheistDecember 10, 2019 at 16:39#3615420 likes
This is common to forums, which over time develop a collective attitude. It's a form of censorship which empowers people to remove whatever they don't understand,or don't want to accept.
In most cases, the questionable content dies a natural death, via lack of interest or disproof on the basis of established evidence. In a democracy, isn't everyone allowed a voice?
WittgensteinDecember 10, 2019 at 17:33#3615620 likes
"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."
I was simply doing a pun on the sound of "your call" as opposed to "my call" as in "Michael". I've been savouring to crack that pun for a long time. Like five days or so. Thanks for the opportunity.
It wasn't the best context to crack it at, and I'm sure in sounded language it can be made to work more smoothly and more overtly.
As a regular user I am glad the mods took action. I was considering reporting his stuff.
I was hesitant whether to leave a snide remark, with cutting sarcasm, or do nothing.
I think I did both.
The guy was not a total waste, he had valid things to say, but not always. His one-sentence replies were sensible, but his longer posts were complete brain salads. He posts, if I am any judge of style and content, at philosophynow with the id of "7johndoe" spelled backwards. I can't be bothered to trace the letters to spell them backwards.
There, on philosophynow, he goes on rampage upon rampage of posting his theories that do not make sense. If it's the same guy. He had also, if this is the same guy, left a very long post in the Lounge section at philosophynow, a very long time ago, an autobiographical note. Very, very sad, his life story is. Not just pitiable; you had to cry when you read it. It looked honest and candid, not made up at all.
Reply to god must be atheist I hope he stays. Best way to react to moderation is to treat it as valuable information about the values of the forum and adjust accordingly. He can still offer his theories if done in a more engaging way that people might want to respond to.
god must be atheistDecember 10, 2019 at 22:47#3616610 likes
"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."
Baden, I appreciate that rules are made to be broken. But there are some other users who have a proven track record of making even less sense than the user who has just been banned.
I also appreciate that the user banned was banned because he committed other offences. But I'd like to see the "no-nonsense" rule to have stronger measures of enforcement than up to now.
I would also like to see clarification on the use of humour.
god must be atheistDecember 10, 2019 at 22:52#3616650 likes
I hope he stays. Best way to react to moderation is to treat it as valuable information about the values of the forum and adjust accordingly. He can still offer his theories if done in a more engaging way that people might want to respond to.
His theories were mere word salads. Speedtime and timespeed and such. He used physical concepts that had not been defined by physics, his theories were really insane. I am not talking about the banned user necessarily, I'm talking about the one on philosophynow.
There was nothing to say edgewise to his theories, because they were the products of an unfortunate, unlcear mind.
- P is equal to, but not the same, as p{D} - {speedtime}
This he did not write, it is my approximation of what he would write.
god must be atheistDecember 10, 2019 at 22:53#3616670 likes
Maybe we're a little too conservative in who we get rid of for low quality, but a) we want to give posters a chance to improve and b) we post bannings and get interrogated about them, so we need to be able to justify whatever we do.
god must be atheistDecember 10, 2019 at 22:59#3616720 likes
Maybe we're a little too conservative in who we get rid of for low quality, but a) we want to give posters a chance to improve and b) we post bannings and get interrogated about them, so we need to be able to justify whatever we do.
Consensus by the body of users on these forums which supports the banning of one or another may be 1. a guidance on pinpointing offenders and 2. an insurance that there won't be too much indignant upheaval among the users.
StreetlightDecember 10, 2019 at 23:25#3616830 likes
His theories were mere word salads. Speedtime and timespeed and such. He used physical concepts that had not been defined by physics, his theories were really insane. I am not talking about the banned user necessarily, I'm talking about the one on philosophynow.
Same fellow. Or at least, that's exactly the post I deleted.
I would also like to see clarification on the use of humour.
Provided that it’s of sufficient quality, it can be used effectively to lighten a mood, ridicule a fool, or merely to amuse yourself. Throw caution to the wind, I say, and let loose your wit as the mood strikes you. If you’re banned for it, at least you can take some comfort in knowing that you’ve been true to your whimsical instincts.
I pronounce "my call" like "my cawl." Any other way is stupid.
Did you know that the word "stupid" comes from the Latin word "stupere" meaning "be amazed or stunned"?
god must be atheistDecember 11, 2019 at 12:44#3618070 likes
Reply to Michael How do you pronounce "Michael"? After all, you ought to be the ultimate authority on that.
=====
OOps. I realized that you have already said that.
Alzheimer's dementia strikes again. Forgetfulness is like a... a... I forgot.
I understand that perspective. Another one though would be that that would be extra work for us for the sake of posters who didn't put enough work into their OP. Fair?
I'm usually willing to send back deleted OPs on request anyhow.
Comments (45)
Have I offended anyone. Have I been rude, disrespectful. These are my genuine held beliefs and you have the temerity to delete them?
I didn't see your OP, but the link explains moderation procedures, and @StreetlightX is a moderator. Here's some more info: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op
I'd advise you to calm down and wait for further explanation from @StreetlightX (such as he feels appropriate to give) or we will have no choice but to ban you.
I think it’s sad that it’s impossible to recover posts that the moderation deletes, something that seems to be gibberish to someone may be quite important to someone else, so there should be the possibility for the poster to at least have access for a while to their posts that were deleted so that they can at least save it for themselves. We can’t judge how important something is to someone without being them.
Also as a suggestion I believe one should have the opportunity to appeal the deletion of posts, for instance in this case his posts seem to have been deleted forever and no one has the ability to judge them anymore. I’m not saying your judgment was wrong, but respectfully it might have been, and now we have no way to find out.
As an admin, I have access to deleted posts and appeal is possible. But he's banned now, so no point digging them up.
Re: appeals, one of the issues is that the forum software just don't provide a good mechanism for it. It's something we'd like, but it's technically hard to implement.
We don't want posts that are worthy of deletion showing on the site. That's why we delete them.
I guess it's your call, Michael.
In most cases, the questionable content dies a natural death, via lack of interest or disproof on the basis of established evidence. In a democracy, isn't everyone allowed a voice?
--- Noam Chomsky
"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."
Yes. Even the admins obey my demands.
Quoting sandman
This isn't a democratic institution.
I was simply doing a pun on the sound of "your call" as opposed to "my call" as in "Michael". I've been savouring to crack that pun for a long time. Like five days or so. Thanks for the opportunity.
It wasn't the best context to crack it at, and I'm sure in sounded language it can be made to work more smoothly and more overtly.
Oh. Maybe it's an accent thing. I pronounce "my call" like "my cool" and "Michael" like "my cull".
I was hesitant whether to leave a snide remark, with cutting sarcasm, or do nothing.
I think I did both.
The guy was not a total waste, he had valid things to say, but not always. His one-sentence replies were sensible, but his longer posts were complete brain salads. He posts, if I am any judge of style and content, at philosophynow with the id of "7johndoe" spelled backwards. I can't be bothered to trace the letters to spell them backwards.
There, on philosophynow, he goes on rampage upon rampage of posting his theories that do not make sense. If it's the same guy. He had also, if this is the same guy, left a very long post in the Lounge section at philosophynow, a very long time ago, an autobiographical note. Very, very sad, his life story is. Not just pitiable; you had to cry when you read it. It looked honest and candid, not made up at all.
Baden, I appreciate that rules are made to be broken. But there are some other users who have a proven track record of making even less sense than the user who has just been banned.
I also appreciate that the user banned was banned because he committed other offences. But I'd like to see the "no-nonsense" rule to have stronger measures of enforcement than up to now.
I would also like to see clarification on the use of humour.
His theories were mere word salads. Speedtime and timespeed and such. He used physical concepts that had not been defined by physics, his theories were really insane. I am not talking about the banned user necessarily, I'm talking about the one on philosophynow.
There was nothing to say edgewise to his theories, because they were the products of an unfortunate, unlcear mind.
- P is equal to, but not the same, as p{D} - {speedtime}
This he did not write, it is my approximation of what he would write.
This is true.
Maybe we're a little too conservative in who we get rid of for low quality, but a) we want to give posters a chance to improve and b) we post bannings and get interrogated about them, so we need to be able to justify whatever we do.
Consensus by the body of users on these forums which supports the banning of one or another may be 1. a guidance on pinpointing offenders and 2. an insurance that there won't be too much indignant upheaval among the users.
Same fellow. Or at least, that's exactly the post I deleted.
Provided that it’s of sufficient quality, it can be used effectively to lighten a mood, ridicule a fool, or merely to amuse yourself. Throw caution to the wind, I say, and let loose your wit as the mood strikes you. If you’re banned for it, at least you can take some comfort in knowing that you’ve been true to your whimsical instincts.
I pronounce "my call" like "my cawl." Any other way is stupid.
Did you know that the word "stupid" comes from the Latin word "stupere" meaning "be amazed or stunned"?
=====
OOps. I realized that you have already said that.
Alzheimer's dementia strikes again. Forgetfulness is like a... a... I forgot.
Stupendous
From inside every big and learned word there is a small, stupid word trying to come out.
That's how new words get born. Then they grow up, and they also give birth yet to another generation of stupid little ankle-biter words.
I predict that in two thousand years, "stupid" will be written as "stupoimeusse", and it will mean "the nice smelling lady's breasts".
I understand that perspective. Another one though would be that that would be extra work for us for the sake of posters who didn't put enough work into their OP. Fair?
I'm usually willing to send back deleted OPs on request anyhow.
The German way sounds way cooler, imho.
Mih- chah - ale. (My best phonetic approximation.)
The ch sound in German is soft, like at the end of Bach. (Hope that makes sense.)