Well, as I said, there are other forums that adhere to a different standard, such as peer-reviewed posts and topics. I happen to like the disagreements that arise here despite the lack of agreement. I mean, you can't have one without the other. And, we are discussing philosophy here, so every topic is going to be rife with disagreement.

Steve Jobs is a role model of sorts. The key to his success at making Apple the richest company in the world was that he was never happy with anything for long. He embraced a permanent state of chronic dissatisfaction. — Jake

I'm not sure what utility Steve Jobs endowed people with. Chronic dissatisfaction tends to breed unhappiness and anxiety.

EDIT: I wouldn't invest in Apple nowadays. They're struggling with market saturation.

I've actually seen this done on a forum. The elite area of the forum ended up being a ghost town. The only benefit, as I suggested earlier, was that the members of the elite class were not subject to the critiques of the lower class.

Being the sage on the [secure] stage can be quite lonely if no one is listening.

I have some experience with this context. In a time in which I wasn't as busy, I was on staff of a philosophy Discord. We did have a seperate section for we people identified as knowledgable or just posted who were interested in taking philosophy seriously. Let me go through why I don't think it would work here.

The split worked very well for our Discord. Often, we would have people without knowledge, or enthusiasm which exceeded their experience, clogging up our chat. Since our interface was real time, this became a critical issue.

Discussion of the newcomer's claims or questions would dominate. We would have other newcomer's trying to engage with inadequate commentary. Or any other conversation would become lost as staff or a knowledable person tried to help the newcomer or correct their mistakes. Other discussion would get lost. Pretty difficult for the knowledge members who wanted to have a lesiurely chat about a topic they new well.

So we made a specific room for knowledgable people to chat in, without having to deal with the distraction of novice questions or errors. It worked well for handling the real time traffic.

But it wasn't all fantastic. In creating a split, we codified a hierarchical difference between those who have been granted access or not. It excentuated feelings of which posters knew more and which were laughably ignorant. Overall, I would judge it successful in our environment, but it brought disadvantages one might be wary about.

In the case of this forum, I only see the disadvantages winning out. Since this is not a real time environment, there is no need to immediately control discussion traffic to allow the users to have their conversation. Each topic has its own, slow moving, dedicated area. The major advantage of giving knowledge posters a clubhouse isn't here.

To my mind this only leaves disadvantages. Not only do you codify the hierarchy of users, but in the slower format, it may seriously harm less knowledge users. If every knowledge posters is off talking with other well read posters in their culbhouse, they won't be around to help newcomer's as much. A forum doesn't have quick conversation and switching between channels like a real time internet chat.

Lastly, at least from an academic philosophy perspective, this forum just doesn't really have the user base to support an expert section. Of the regular posters active, the numbers of people with decent grounding in philosphical texts is countable on two hands. Maybe I just haven't seen some people because their topics haven't come up, but I suspect not.

Most on the forum, it seems to me, fit more on a line between pop philosophy and beginning to read texts. In terms of academic philosophy, it looks like the clubhouse would a limited group of 5-7 people just talking amongst themselves. (which they kind of already do in their focused threads anyway). It doesn't seem like it would improve forum quality.

While I'm on the fence on whether there should be an elite section to this forum, I would like to see some incentive for posting higher quality content hereabouts.

How about gold stars, like this :sparkle:

The member with the most stars can be declared the philosopher king.

How about gold stars, like this :sparkle: — praxis

As childish as that seems, I could see some merit to the idea of having that idea implemented. Incentives, rewards, hmm humdrum.

I would like to see some incentive for posting higher quality content hereabouts. — Wallows

We only have sticks. You'll have to find your own carrot.

I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm wrong, WRONG! — Jake

For the record, he said he was wrong. We can close the discussion.

Wait! Unless... he was being sarcastic? But I thought he was a serious-minded elite, above that sort of behaviour.

Reading between the lines, I think the request is for a place where he can be sarcastic and make quips, but no one else can be sarcastic and make quips at his expense. Those people are not the elite class. They should be excluded.

In terms of academic philosophy, it looks like the clubhouse would a limited group of 5-7 people just talking amongst themselves. (which they kind of already do in their focused threads anyway). — TheWillowOfDarkness

If anyone is taking this topic seriously it might be a good first step to check with these members to see if they ever feel interrupted by the riffraff.

It's just too much work Jake. TPF is a charity, not a business, and what you ask for requires time and money to achieve.

We only have sticks. You'll have to find your own carrot. — Baden

Oh come now, I'm sure there's something that can be done about our lack of incentive structure resulting in the endless psychologizing of people's intentions hereabouts. OK, before you say that we're not a business, then I protest that we can at least make this place more academic, hence my fixation of reading groups.

Try writing better posts.

Try writing better posts. — Baden

Do I get a reward for that?

Self-respect?

Do I get a reward for that? — Wallows

Not getting beaten with a stick.

Self-respect? — Baden

Here I am trying to quantify a qualifier. Go figure.

Thanks for a very thoughtful reply. I will offer some debate, just in the hopes of keeping an interesting exchange going. I don't care if I "win" because I already know I'm not going to, and am ok with that.

In creating a split, we codified a hierarchical difference between those who have been granted access or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If every knowledge posters is off talking with other well read posters in their culbhouse, they won't be around to help newcomer's as much. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ok, but there is a hierarchical difference. I'm just trying to recognize that. Some people have PhDs in these subjects, and some do not. Some people are articulate in their comments, while others are less so. Some people have been thinking about these subjects for 50 years, while others are encountering them for the first time. All posters are not created equal.

So the question I'm posing is, does the forum wish to make an effort to serve the needs of those who are most qualified to speak to these subjects?

If there is such a desire, where there is a will there is a way. If there is no such desire, then ok, no problem, let's just say that, close the thread and return to the regularly scheduled programming.

The major advantage of giving knowledge posters a clubhouse isn't here. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Without such a clubhouse we can kiss the knowledge posters goodbye. Thus we don't get to read them, at least not here. Without such a clubhouse there is no mechanism for encouraging knowledge posters to give the forum a try. Those with the most interesting thoughts on these subjects simply aren't going to invest their time in to scrolling through page after page of twaddle just to find the few posts that are indeed interesting. So we either recognize that reality and deal with it, or we say goodbye to them.

If every knowledge posters is off talking with other well read posters in their culbhouse, they won't be around to help newcomer's as much. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Without such a clubhouse, they won't be here at all.

Lastly, at least from an academic philosophy perspective, this forum just doesn't really have the user base to support an expert section. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree, and am just suggesting it might be an interesting challenge to try to expand the user base in this direction.

There are lots of ways such an attempt might be made, but we're never going to make much progress on that so long as our focus is exclusively on why this can never work.

TPF is a charity, not a business, and what you ask for requires time and money to achieve. — VagabondSpectre

Even with the resources, it would still a bad idea in my view. It would hurt the community nature of the place, which is based on character, variety, and a certain egalitarianism and tolerance (I hope) rather than just philosophical knowledge. Imagine you're running a bar that's been very successful at attracting a reasonably intelligent clientele who are on the whole happy with the place. Would it improve things to tell half of them that there's a new room just been set up for the favoured ones that they're not allowed entry to because they're just not good enough? Or would that just fuck things up? I say the latter.

I would speculate sometimes, I did see an interuption the other day, but it was by someone with some background in texts.

Overall, I do think the forum often has problems staying topic. I could imagine a lot of posters could get annoyed by others taking their topic off in some direction outside its interests. Most topics are pretty general though, so I figure it might be rarer than it might appear.

I think tougher moderation would be a better fix for that one than a secluded area. It would actually demand something of distracting posters. But I think that would change the tone of the forum significant, to a point where we might lose a number of members angry they cannot give their opinion because it's judged off topic or low quality. Also, it would mean much more work and stress for the mods.

It's just too much work Jake. TPF is a charity, not a business, and what you ask for requires time and money to achieve. — VagabondSpectre

This is a common complaint (I've had this very discussion approximately 3,000 times :smile: ) which is easily solved. That is, easily solved, if we want it solved. If we don't want it solved, it's impossible.

If you should actually wish that such a problem could be solved, start trying to solve it. If I see you doing that I'll participate.

I tend to agree.

Maybe a section for featured threads (chosen somehow) could do something to up our quality game without ostracizing others, but I'm fairly satisfied as it is.

Even with the resources, it would still a bad idea in my view. It would hurt the community nature of the place, which is based on character, variety, and a certain egalitarianism and tolerance (I hope) rather than just philosophical knowledge. Imagine you're running a bar that's been very successful at attracting a reasonably intelligent clientele who are on the whole happy with the place. Would it improve things to tell half of them that there's a new room just been set up for the favoured ones that they're not allowed entry to because they're just not good enough? Or would that just fuck things up? I say the latter. — Baden

It would only fuck things up with those of us who can't stand the thought that somebody might know something that we don't and that they are being appreciated and recognized for that accomplishment.

Yes, a number of current members would whine like little babies. I don't object. Let them do so. In the lower sections of the forum dedicated to such things.

Without such a clubhouse we can kiss the knowledge posters goodbye — Jake

That didn't happen at the old PF and it doesn't happen here. We've always had plenty of knowledgeable posters. That's almost twenty years of philosophy forums where your prediction has failed to materialize.

Yet, you haven't suggested any kind of incentive structure to create the demand for higher quality posts. So, you've condemned your sentiment to a complaint.

That didn't happen at the old PF and it doesn't happen here. We've always had plenty of knowledgeable posters. That's almost twenty years of philosophy forums where your prediction has failed to materialize. — Baden

Start a thread on any subject, and watch it immediately begin to fill with twaddle.

Again, this forum is pretty good compared to many other forums. I totally agree with that. It's just no where near as good as it could be. If you don't care about that, if it doesn't interest you, ok, again for the 9th time just lock this thread and we're done. I have no problem with that at all.

Some people have been thinking about these subjects for 50 years, while others are encountering them for the first time. — Jake

The same year, he published four groundbreaking papers during his renowned annus mirabilis (miracle year) which brought him to the notice of the academic world at the age of 26.

Einstein, that is. Just saying.

Yet, you haven't suggested any kind of incentive structure to create the demand for higher quality posts. — Wallows

I'm not going in to detail on 20 years of thinking on such subjects (I'm a retired forum software developer) because I've been given no incentive to do so. I'm ok with that. But should anyone want details, the price tag is to get off one's ass and start trying to solve the problem, if you perceive this to be a problem. Sorry dudes, I'm not going to play the game where I sit here posting constructive suggestions one after another while the rest of you sit back and do nothing but nitpick.

I'm ok with the nitpicking, but this is all you'll get in return.

That is, easily solved, if we want it solved. If we don't want it solved, it's impossible. — Jake

There's that catch 22 again. :lol:

I see that as, at least at this stage, a false problem. Knowledgable users, most of all, want knowledable users they can have discussions with. Giving them a secluded area is meaningless without having the community they to talk with in the first place.

In many cases, we might find the secluded area isn't necessary because presence of knowledgeable users raises discussion quality enough for them to be content.

It's really the user base which matters. Any policy to assist them needs them first. I'd get that to a critical mass before thinking about whether anything was required to restrain annoying newbies.