If your post included links the auto spam filter might have killed it. If yes, mods will probably restore it. Otherwise, no idea.

Nothing in the spam filter. Was it restored?

Thanks for your response fdrake. It was not restored. I thought that maybe links to a book were not allowed. It seems that forums have different rules. It's an important work and to deny interested people the opportunity to read the first three chapters would be unfortunate. I'm not one who is going to debate a ruling though.

Jake, I don't think it was the auto-spam or it would have been in the spam filter. Some moderators don't like links to a book that is considered self-promotion, although I thought books and papers were allowed. Very confusing.

If you're who I think you are (or rather, if that post was what I think it is), I didn't delete it, but I believe the idea is that no one is here to play games, and if you're going to post something, post it, and not play peek-a-boo with your OP.

And books and papers are allowed if the ideas in them are discussed enough to spark a thread on its own terms. In other words, you need to do a bit of work of your own here. Posts that just say things like 'read this its great' have a good change of being deleted.

Though I wasn't the mod that removed it, I'd allow a link to a blog post or a personal book if the OP was very well written, sufficiently in depth, and likely to generate good discussion. You can't just... Oh, Street said the same thing.

<Oh, if you're who I think you are, I didn't delete it, but I believe the idea is that no one is here to play games, and if you're going to post something, post it, and not play peek-a-boo with your OP.>

What do you mean "if you're who I think you are?" Isn't that a little presumptive? And what do you mean by me playing peek-a-boo with my OP? I am being forthright, and I certainly don't deserve to be judged so prematurely. WOW!!

<And books and papers are allowed if the ideas in them are discussed enough to spark a thread. In other words, you need to do a bit of work of your own here. Posts that just say things like 'read this its great' are likely to be deleted.>

If books and papers are allowed, did I put the book in the wrong section? Should it not have been put in a thread before gathering interest in the books and papers area? It's hurtful to get deleted without an explanation. I'm glad that you gave me a reason for the deletion, although it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, IMO.

What do you mean "if you're who I think you are? — Janis

I just mean I can't see deleted posts so I'm working off memory here - and that if I recall, your OP was something like "I have some papers written by someone else that are pretty neat. If there's enough interest I might make some of it available" - paraphrasing, of course. And that sort of stuff is a no no. Anyway, I'll leave it to whoever in fact deleted it to provide a better explanation than I can.

Though I wasn't the mod that removed it, I'd allow a link to a blog post or a personal book if the OP was very well written, sufficiently in depth, and likely to generate good discussion. You can't just... Oh, Street said the same thing. — fdrake

It's difficult to meet the different requirements that really have nothing to do with the content being offered. I gave a link to the first three chapters of a very important work. Why in the world would a moderator take it upon himself to delete it without an explanation and a way to rectify it. Fdrake, you say that I have to offer an OP. I don't have a blog and this book is not based on opinion, so I can't write an opinion piece. I can try to explain in my own words (with help from excerpts in the book) the author's reasoning as to why man's will is not free, and what important knowledge lies locked behind this hermetically sealed door.

What do you mean "if you're who I think you are? — Janis

I own the copyright.

It's difficult to meet the different requirements that really have nothing to do with the content being offered. I gave a link to the first three chapters of a very important work. Why in the world would a moderator take it upon himself to delete it without an explanation and a way to rectify it. Fdrake, you say that I have to offer an OP. I don't have a blog and this book is not based on opinion, so I can't write an opinion piece. I can try to explain in my own words (with help from excerpts in the book) the author's reasoning as to why man's will is not free, and what important knowledge lies locked behind this hermetically sealed door. — Janis

If you're that passionate about the subject, try again, tackle a specific issue the book deals with in some amount of depth. Don't just quote from it or reference it, explain it in detail and why it's relevant.

@Janis I deleted it. It contained no philosophy or anything discernibly scientific etc. It consisted of a claim that someone made an important discovery, you wrote compiled some books about it and an invite to ask you for more information. That's not the type of thing we do here. The general idea for an OP is you set up an issue for discussion and take a position on it.

Here is an example of a basic, acceptable OP from the front page:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4614/is-our-dominion-over-animals-unethical/p1

The type of thing you wrote (which was peek-a-boo-ish as @StreetlightX mentioned) might be more acceptable as a Shoutbox post.

Why in the world would a moderator take it upon himself to delete it without an explanation and a way to rectify it — Janis

We just don't have the manpower to personally teach people the basics of writing OPs tbh. We've written a few instructions in the guidelines on the front page:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

And you can also just look around the site to get a better feel for how things work. So, of course, feel free to try again as @fdrake suggested.

It's hurtful to get deleted without an explanation. — Janis

Sorry about that part btw. We're not out to hurt anyone's feelings. It's a simple matter of practicality that we often don't have time to write explanations. I deleted four other OPs at the same time I deleted yours and I didn't have time to explain why to everyone.

Sorry about that part btw. We're not out to hurt anyone's feelings. It's a simple matter of practicality that we often don't have time to write explanations. I deleted four other OPs at the same time I deleted yours and I didn't have time to explain why to everyone. — Baden

Thanks for your apology. You seem like a nice group of people.

Here is an example of a basic acceptable OP from the front page:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4614/is-our-dominion-over-animals-unethical/p1

The type of thing you wrote (which was peek-a-boo-ish as StreetlightX mentioned) might be more acceptable as a Shoutbox post. — Baden

I can try again. Thanks for the example. Interesting thread! If I still don't meet the guidelines, I'll move my discussion to Shoutbox.

Thank you!

Someone should welcome you to The Philosophy Forum, so I will. Consider yourself one of the family. We're kind of a prickly family, however, so don't be surprised if you run into a bit of adversity every now and then.

The moderators are all volunteers: unpaid, unthanked, unappreciated, unrewarded, unloved, un-etc. They are mysterious behind the scenery characters. Like god, they move in mysterious ways.

Someone should welcome you to The Philosophy Forum, so I will. Consider yourself one of the family. We're kind of a prickly family, however, so don't be surprised if you run into a bit of adversity every now and then.>

I don't mind adversary, as long as a comment is not a knee jerk reaction to something that wasn't given near enough thought.
— Bitter Crank

The moderators are all volunteers: unpaid, unthanked, unappreciated, unrewarded, unloved, un-etc. They are mysterious behind the scenery characters. Like god, they move in mysterious ways. — Bitter Crank

Being a moderator must be a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it. :wink:

It's difficult to meet the different requirements that really have nothing to do with the content being offered. I gave a link to the first three chapters of a very important work. — Janis

Did your post also include some of your own thoughts why the book is interesting and important etc? I'm not a mod, but my guess is that this might help.

If it makes you feel better the mods once deleted an entire thread I'd spent a week working on, and I somehow survived the assault. :smile:

We knew you would. :wink:

Janis
11
Thanks for your response fdrake. It was not restored. I thought that maybe links to a book were not allowed. It seems that forums have different rules. It's an important work and to deny interested people the opportunity to read the first three chapters would be unfortunate. I'm not one who is going to debate a ruling though. — Janis

In a democracy with people who value liberty, what can more important than debating a ruling? Wouldn't that lead to rule by reason, rather rule by authority over the people? Oh, I know very well that questioning the mods is not tolerated and that the defense argument is these forums are privately owned and the rights of property trump everything else.

I am deeply concerned that we have accepted this reality without question. It is as though we have forgotten why we have trial by jury and why we allow the person charged to have a defense. :lol: I just posted in another thread the difference between abstract thinking and concrete thinking, and how we stopped educating for conceptual thinking. Understanding what I have said concretely or conceptually will result in extremely different interpretations of what I have said. Will the mods see this as concern about a fundamental principle (abstract) or will the mods see a personal challenge (concrete)? Do we want a reality where we afraid to say what we think is important or we are afraid to defend ourselves? What do we want our school children to learn? Keep your mouths shut and obey (concrete), or argue your point until there is a consensus on the best reasoning (abstract).

Bitter Crank
6.9k
↪Janis Someone should welcome you to The Philosophy Forum, so I will. Consider yourself one of the family. We're kind of a prickly family, however, so don't be surprised if you run into a bit of adversity every now and then.

The moderators are all volunteers: unpaid, unthanked, unappreciated, unrewarded, unloved, un-etc. They are mysterious behind the scenery characters. Like god, they move in mysterious ways. — Bitter Crank

But are they abstract thinkers of concrete thinkers?

Oh, I know very well that questioning the mods is not tolerated... — Athena

If questioning the mods were not tolerated, there wouldn't be a feedback category. Plus, the guidelines specifically state that mods can not only be questioned, but censured and their decisions overturned.

In a democracy... — Athena

It's not a democracy, it's a community with rules which overall work quite well in maintaining standards. But again, read the guidelines, and please note therein:

"If you feel from the get-go that their [the guidelines] very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

If questioning the mods were not tolerated, there wouldn't be a feedback category. Plus, the guidelines specifically state that mods can not only be questioned, but censured and their decisions overturned. — Baden

This assures me important principles are being practiced.

It's not a democracy, it's a community with rules which overall work quite well in maintaining standards. But again, read the guidelines, and please note therein:

"If you feel from the get-go that their [the guidelines] very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you." — Baden

It's not a democracy, it's a community with rules which overall work quite well in maintaining standards. But again, read the guidelines, and please note therein:

"If you feel from the get-go that their [the guidelines] very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you." — Baden

Why did you feel a need to add the warning to your statement of principles? What is happening here?

I am sure what is happening is not the same thing for me as it is for you? I am having insights, little moments of ah, ha this is why the difference between concrete and abstract thinking is so important. I am concerned you are not thinking of the communication with the same abstract thinking. I am wanting to defend principles and you seem to perceive a possible threat to the tribe/community? The book "Suicide of West" throws a completely different meaning on my last words of tribalism/community than a person who has not read the book would have.

There is great danger in our communications because our words do not hold exact meanings. We come to everything from different points of view and we can see very different things although we think we are talking about the same thing. I think the principles you first mentioned are very important. I am worried that you thought it necessary to add a warning.

It's not a warning. You haven't done anything to require being warned. It's simply that some of those who express similar concerns to the ones you previously expressed never get used to the idea of being moderated, and so are never comfortable here.

Oh, I know very well that questioning the mods is not tolerated... — Athena

You must be new.

But are they abstract thinkers or concrete thinkers? — Athena

It's not a warning. You haven't done anything yet... — Baden

Maybe I didn't follow the rules, not sure. — Janis

When it comes to concrete, the moderators tend to be brutalists -- that is, they like seeing the forms of concrete fully exposed and visible. I suppose there are abstract views of concrete -- people who see platonic forms emerging from bridge abutments and raw concrete loading docks. I have no truck with them.

Here is a photograph of The Philosophy Forum HQ: The colorful and decorative blue garbage bin on the left side of the HQ is where deleted posts and banned members end up. (That is not a threat.) There is only one door into the building, and that is guarded by Charybdis and Scylla. The building is designed to protect moderators from the angry mobs who want to get at the TPF HQ denizens to settle old scores.

Thick concrete comes in handy for foiling their evil plans. That and monsters guarding the gates.

It's simply that some of those who express similar concerns to the ones you previously expressed never get used to the idea of being moderated, and so are never comfortable here. — Baden

There are two issues involved.

One is the issue of moderation in general, which is essential to any forum worth reading. And then there is the issue of the quality of moderation being provided.

The mods might resist the urge to paint anyone who challenges their decisions as always being one of those "free speechers" who are against any kind of moderation. The mods are people. They are working for free, a job with fairly low entry requirements. Mods make mistakes as we all do.