It seems to me that in the past year or so, there's been a more aggressive push from the mods to move intermediate level as well as theistic threads, as well as unorthodox and sometimes mystical (yet complex) threads to the Lounge — Noble Dust

When I first read this I actually thought you were joking. I can't believe you seriously think that current discussions are the result of an excessive amount of pruning. We still have one about whether bandanas are scary!

I agree with the other posters here that even more pruning is required, but unfortunately, it would be mostly pruning of posts, not topics and that's just too monumental a task for the size of moderation team we have, so we have to live with it.

As to your other point, I think you need to look at the self-fulfilling nature of your judgement. Why is The Lounge "the graveyard of the forum", "the trash compactor" if it's full of all the posts you're suggesting should be on the front page? Shouldn't it be a lively place for learning and discussion if all these threads were such good openers?

I quite like that there is variation in quality. It's educational. Discussion is much the best way to learn philosophy, because it makes one use the concepts that would otherwise sit comfortably in the context of what one had read and never get tested in practice.

There is always going to be a top and bottom to the quality of what is posted, and always some dispute at the margins. I prefer stupidity to rudeness, personally. Other arrangements could be tried, though.
Perhaps the most academic, high brow topics could be marked in some way, and more strictly controlled. Perhaps we could make a separate section of text discussions, with a link to an article or book as the op.

One of the best ways to raise quality is by not responding to rubbish. This is very hard these days, but worth trying. Ops that get no answers, drop out of sight quite quickly. This could even happen to the Trump thread if we all made an effort.

:100: :clap: :up:

Perhaps the most academic, high brow topics could be marked in some way, and more strictly controlled. Perhaps we could make a separate section of text discussions, with a link to an article or book as the op. — unenlightened

I suggested that a while back. The response, I think, was that it would best be done by the OP, as in "please keep responses related to the text", but I'm still broadly in favour of a more academic section, and I think using a text or paper would be a relatively impartial way of distinguishing such a section.

One of the best ways to raise quality is by not responding to rubbish. This is very hard these days, but worth trying. — unenlightened

Absolutely. I think a lot of engagement with the low quality posts starts out as an attempt to correct mistakes, but once one is hooked its difficult to let go even though it's become obvious the guy is a kook.

It seems to me that in the past year or so, there's been a more aggressive push from the mods to move intermediate level as well as theistic threads, as well as unorthodox and sometimes mystical (yet complex) threads to the Lounge, which is the graveyard of the forum, as we all know. So it's essentially a way to delete threads that aren't at a high academic level in a polite way, yeah? Correct me if I'm wrong. — Noble Dust

I was a participant in one of those threads with you, a couple of months back, when it got bumped to the Lounge, and you complained about it at the time. I remember thinking at the time, 'this thread is going to get shut down'; it might have been about theories of rebirth. I think your OP is probably a response to that.

Overall, I find your philosophical perspective congenial to my own, more so than almost any other contributor, and I really do understand your objection. But you have to allow for context, as this is a public forum in a secular culture. It's not going to be predisposed to explorations of the kinds of questions that occur to (let's say) spiritual practitioners (and in fairness to the mods, there's a lot of uninformed musings - as you say, 'word vomit' - about these various topics, as contributors confront the various samskaras their unconscious is throwing up.)

I have had my fair share of bruising encounters on this forum, and have often promised myself never to return, yet here I am. I'm currently trying to regard the moderation standards and general attitudes you find on fora such as these, as like the poles on a slalom course, and to try ski between them, going as fast as possible, but trying not to run over them. Sometimes it's rewarding, often times it's frustrating, and often it's simply force of habit. But learning what does and doesn't cross the boundaries is part of the art. That's my two cents.

@Noble Dust We tend to be more sensitive to complaints about the site looking trashy and low quality than not open enough to the thoughts of common folk. The lounge then becomes our compromise. Having said that, any person of average intelligence should have the ability to write an acceptable OP for the main page (and my instructional OP on that is intended to help rather than be a strict template).

The defining factor here for me is the presence of effort. Having strict standards philosophically could be considered exclusionary but requiring effort isn't. And if you haven't been banned, you can take it we consider you smart and able enough to participate in all aspects of the site, including writing OPs, and we only want to see evidence you respect the place enough to put some work in while contributing. Those who don't effectively exclude themselves. Where we might be culpable is not always being helpful enough in identifying how posters can improve. We may then unintentionally discourage them from trying to progress. But we don't set out to hurt posters' feelings or put them off posting further, it's more that we give priority to maintaining that minimum level of quality that we figure gives the place its intellectual character.

Also, there is this poll from a while back, which suggests to me that the mod team and the community as a whole are pretty much in lockstep in terms of the standards they want to see here.

Run the poll again, see how it compares. It is from three years ago, the complainants claim the change has taken place in the last year.

Ah, yeah, not sure we'll run the poll again, but point taken.

I think it's important to take COVID-19 into account. With less places to go and less opportunities to have fun to get your energy out, it certainty affects your ability to focus. From my personal experience, my stress levels have definitely gone up and I'm not nearly as sharp as I could be. I blame COVID-19 quarantine for my lack of seriousness (I'm attempting to control myself though :shade: ). (If @jamalrob can get shed "his fish taco jazz mountain" I can surely get my act together.)

Understood, but I would like to know why it was moved (btw I'm not like demanding a reason for any thread being moved or anything). I don't have to know, I would just like to, in this case. But I'm aware of making extra work for you mods, which I don't want to do. It's water under the bridge, as far as I'm concerned. — Noble Dust

This was a thread that was going nowhere of the OP's own volition. The point of forwarding a proof of anything is surely to invite exploration of its potential shortcomings if only to satisfy yourself of its robustness. Merely reasserting the conclusion as a defense and inventing one's own mathematics has morbid curiosity value and nothing else. Given the rules, it seems a solid mod call to me.

If you're interested in a subject and the existing thread fails to meet community standards, surely you can start a better thread on the same subject?

I prefer stupidity to rudeness, personally. — unenlightened

I agree with this too. What makes a forum high-quality to me is not so much the intelligence or education of its posters, but things like charity, patience, and other stripper names. People like that new user @DoppyTheElv are a great example: by his own admission he knows very little about the topics he’s interested in, but he’s humble about that and open-minded and eager to learn.

I’m looking for a place where people like that can come to chat and learn and field their thoughts for discussion, to find out when their ideas aren’t new and who has said what in the same topics before, and to build up any genuinely new ideas they might have in a friendly collaborative way (but still critical of course), not to be harshly shot down for being an idiot who makes mistakes.

I came here thinking of myself as such a learner, expecting a place full of people at least as well educated as me who would hopefully treat me in such a way. I have lots of philosophical thoughts that I think might be new, but I’m not at all confident enough in them to go try to publish a paper or something without even talking to someone about them first. I just want to casually chat with some philosophical people about them.

For the most part, people here usually seem less educated than I at first hoped, but that’s fine: I’m happy being on the other side instead, helping them learn and sort out their thoughts. On the other hand, most of the people who seem possibly more educated seem either silent or unfriendly, with some notable exceptions. So I imagine for those many users even lower down the totem pole, the experience is even worse.

By the way, when I talk about stupidity I don't really mean a lack of intelligence so much as an attitude, e.g., thoughtlessness, lack of good sense (being pedantic), laziness, refusal to change one's mind no matter what, and so on.

Neither do I want to exclude people without any philosophical education. It's about the attitude.

@jamalrob I'm down with that definition of stupidity; I'm just interested in the balance between openness and critical thinking. I'm just leaving this here for y'all mods cause y'all can see my knee-jerk reaction, word???

I think your OP is probably a response to that. — Wayfarer

It is to a degree, but it's been 4 or so years in the making.

Overall, I find your philosophical perspective congenial to my own, more so than almost any other contributor, and I really do understand your objection. But you have to allow for context, as this is a public forum in a secular culture. It's not going to be predisposed to explorations of the kinds of questions that occur to (let's say) spiritual practitioners (and in fairness to the mods, there's a lot of uninformed musings - as you say, 'word vomit' - about these various topics, as contributors confront the various samskaras their unconscious is throwing up.) — Wayfarer

I appreciate that you find a connection, which I do as well. Thank you. Sure, the spiritual isn't as accepted here. Maybe that's my problem.

The lounge then becomes our compromise. — Baden

That makes sense in theory, but my problem is that the lounge is not viewable on the main forum. So if you mods relegate a thread to the lounge, well, you might as well just delete it. No? Am I missing something? (And as you know, this only happened in the past year or so (or two years? my memory sucks)). Hence my complaint about the past year.

One of the best ways to raise quality is by not responding to rubbish. This is very hard these days, but worth trying. Ops that get no answers, drop out of sight quite quickly. This could even happen to the Trump thread if we all made an effort. — unenlightened

Very wise information, thank you. I'm guilty of responding to rubbish, out of pride. No good. It just sends me back to square one, ya know?

Maybe that's my problem. — Noble Dust

I think it might be. I've stormed off from this forum on several occasions but (obviously) have returned. But I've learned to become somewhat more detached about it (although I must admit, still have the urge to throw the odd grenade.) But it’s still overall a very good forum.

(Incidentally - on the subject of the role of spiritual philosophy in the context of secular culture, Charles Taylor's A Secular Age is the go-to book. It's a real door-stopper, but this blog has quite a good summary and analysis of his concept of the 'immanent frame' which helps to make sense, or frame, a lot of the meta-discussions around this topic.)

I think it might be. — Wayfarer

I appreciate your directness. You're probably right.

(Incidentally - on the subject of the role of spiritual philosophy in the context of secular culture, Charles Taylor's A Secular Age is the go-to book. It's a real door-stopper, but this blog has quite a good summary and analysis of his concept of the 'immanent frame' which helps to make sense, or frame, a lot of the meta-discussions around this topic.) — Wayfarer

I'm all for it; thanks! This looks excellent.

One of the best ways to raise quality is by not responding to rubbish. This is very hard these days, but worth trying. Ops that get no answers, drop out of sight quite quickly. This could even happen to the Trump thread if we all made an effort. — unenlightened

I think this is also very good advice. I skip even reading most of the threads here; ain't nobody got time for that. I sometimes reply to "stupid" things just to give a simple answer to an obvious question, or sometimes persist for a while in arguing with intractable people when the exercise seems like it could be informative to onlookers, but if it drags on beyond that point I give up and let the thread die -- or hope it does, or else hope someone else continues some kind of useful work beyond the limits of my patience. But if it's just lowbrow theism vs atheism or something else that's been beaten to death a million times? No comment, let it wither on the vine.

:up:

I [...] sometimes persist for a while in arguing with intractable people when the exercise seems like it could be informative to onlookers, — Pfhorrest

It's an excellent principle to write for the reader more than the interlocutor. I wonder what is the longest thread anyone would be bothered to read all through. I think I might stretch to 5 or 6 pages if it was a good one. Certainly by the time one gets to page 20, one is having a chat and not much more.