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. — Baden

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) — 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?

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning behind "hiding" certain threads from the main page of the site.

We want higher quality discussions/posts on the main page. It's a philosophy forum first and foremost, not a chat room.

It's a philosophy forum first and foremost, not a chat room. — Michael

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.

That's an understandable point, but finding say, the shout box or the Donald Trump thread, etc. via mobile is fairly torturous

Is it easier to get to them if you add them to your bookmarks?

is that a site feature here?

Oh I see now

Yeah that would make it easier

Yeah, click on the star on each discussion

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.

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. — Baden

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.

Can you quote the part of your post that explains that? — Baden

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)?

wouldnt worry too much about the lack of academically oriented threads. — Akanthinos

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.

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.

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. — TheWillowOfDarkness

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.

Hiding the lounge might have an impact on this, if it stops people getting pulled into discussing politics in the lounge. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's the idea.

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. — 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.

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. — John Doe

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 — Maw

@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?

Yes, it does. Thanks.

(props to Banno for breaking out of his usual patterns with that gender thread). — TheWillowOfDarkness

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.