The people who post here seem to be from a very broad range of views. There's the usual mix of cranks, monomaniacs, untheorized hopeless cases, educated smugnesses, political bores, insightful gems, helpful thinkers, wannabe gurus and the curious ignorant (I am in this latter category). — Tom Storm

This is the raw material for a great poll. I leave it for you to create it.

When I first looked for a forum like this and found this forum, it felt like a place that got rid of the usual internet idiots and morons in favor of a better quality discussion for complex topics. But it feels like since my initial experience, the tolerance of idiots and morons has gone up and it's close to impossible to see a discussion that doesn't just let some rabid idiot go on a crusade. — Christoffer

agreed. Very much. My experience is carbon copy.

If I were to recommend moderators to improve on one thing, it would be to clean up the place. — Christoffer

Caveat emptor. Applied, of course, to the situation.

For a short time I participated on a Forum on the Internet, a philosophy forum, that was heavily moderated. Consequently the posters who catered to the moderators' PERSONAL preferences survived, and all else were turfed out. I joined after the turfing out. There was no life there. Intelligence, yes, but no life. A post came on the ENTIRE SITE once every two weeks. They only posted things that they knew everyone would agree over. It was lifeless.

There are no arguments between Plato and Socrates; there are no arguments between Bullwinkle and Homer Simpson. But there are arguments between Plato and Bullwinkle.

What I mean is that weeding out, so to speak, can lead to lifelessness.

There is another site, where the weeding out has not happened at all, even the slightest way... and it's cannibalism there. Some of their users are posting here, too: Johndorn, GMBA, 180 proof (please correct me if I am wrong) and Appolodufus (he neither denied it nor confirmed it when I put it point blank to him that he was a user on the other site). I totally abandoned that site. Fooloso4 also posted there, but all my admiration goes to him, he's not one of the cannibals; he only posted there because apparently he is friends with the site owner there and F4 out of the kindness of his heart raises the average readability of the site. 180 Proof is not one of the crazies, either, but he can become (as can I and have been) cannibalistic.

So this is the middle-of-the-road of sites, between no moderation and supermoderation. I like this site of the three the best.

A 1,000 bucks donation gets you an insta ban of a user of choice, no questions asked. — Benkei

How much to ban a moderator?

For free if you're prepared to take their place.

Not bias so much as good advice. — jamalrob

The forum definitely has a lefty point of view. I don't see that as bias. It's out in the open and impossible to miss. Agendas, but no hidden agendas. I'm lefty too, so it's not an issue for me.

This is not a good place for me to talk politics. I like to have those discussions on conservative sites. Those are the places I've really learned to deal with fractious issues while showing respect. It can really change the tone of a heated argument. It doesn't often change people's minds about political issues, but it can change minds about the people we disagree with. If conservative people came here with that kind of attitude, I think they could find it a valuable site.

There are no arguments between Plato and Socrates; there are no arguments between Bullwinkle and Homer Simpson. But there are arguments between Plato and Bullwinkle. — god must be atheist

I have no idea what this means, but I like it.

What I mean is that weeding out, so to speak, can lead to lifelessness. — god must be atheist

I agree.

My feeling is that the tolerance towards posts and threads that aren't even close to having philosophical quality has increased. Which means the kind of evangelical religious stuff, racist apologist low-quality posts, ad hominems, and BS posts that destroys any quality focus on a specific topic just keeps going. — Christoffer

I haven't been here long enough to notice this trend. At first, I was quite apprehensive about posting here, because it seemed that being cool and readily and creatively dishing out ad homs left and right was the way to be. That is, that's it's not enough to make one's point in plain language, but that one has to be able to wrap it up as something cool, insider humor, insider insights, along with a measure of ad homs. And that if one cannot keep up with this style, one just isn't cool enough for this forum.

PS: A 1,000 bucks donation gets you an insta ban of a user of choice, no questions asked. — Benkei

Are you serious about this, or not ...

That's the cool style I'm talking about above.

I think lots of knowledgable regular posters becoming less active has had a big impact, — TheWillowOfDarkness

I think you're right.

I take it you are referring to Online Philosophy Club and Philosophy Now Forum in that order. When I was a moderator at Online Philosophy Club I would make sure that new topics were reviewed and approved within two days. The policies on who could approve posts changed at about the same time I left. I agree that when I was there things there could be a bit stilted. The Philosophy Now Forum is a cesspool. I left once it became clear that it was not a place for reasoned discussion. I am not friends with either site owner. But thanks for the kind words.

I am an oldie who floated back here from the days PF and sometimes I am more active than others because my job became more demanding.
If I have to compare how it is run now from the way PF was ru, I think the standards on PF were a little higher, but maybe I am wrong, that was after all 10 years ago and you remember only the posts that impressed you.

On the whole though I feel the place is still similar in that it has the occasional very knowledgeable thread the occasional off beat but very interesting idea an the usual groping around in the sandbox to find something to latch on to. There is nothing wrong with that, I came here way back in 2003 or 20004 because of a thread about nothingness and I still see it come up sometimes. I think the place is still a good way to sharpen one's argumentative skills and acquire some basic knowledge about various philosophical arguments. I still find it helpful that hardly anything catches me completely off guard because there has been one post or other about it in PF and one of the savants of the different traditions has commented on it.

What I do notice is that the tolerance towards sharp debate has gone down. It is a society wide trend I feel so nothing different here than in reel life. The ad homs and the snide remarks were all there back in the day as much as now, but the hurt or indignation against them was less. Attacks could really be vicioius but if there was some substance behind it, no worries. It was also recognized, sure debates can get mean, but principle of charity, in the end we do not mean bad. I think people's souls have grown more tender. It is a shame because I think such an attitude is beneficial. The acceptance that we all cross the line sometimes leads to a mutual recognition of fallibility. There were some posters who I had really mean altercations with but think back of with fondness. A debate is not a safe place. that recognition I think would be useful. that does not mean a license to disrespect, but disrespect with high level of substance should be tolerated and eaten. A debate is a battle and the scars of war is what makes us veterans. Of course, plain disrespect without substance is 'crime of war' and leads to dishonorable discharge.

I think the place is still a good way to sharpen one's argumentative skills — Tobias

This is what I like most about the forum.

Good post.

... Appolodufus (he neither denied it nor confirmed it when I put it point blank to him that he was a user on the other site). — god must be atheist

Actually, that's a lie.

This was your "question":

Are you in fact ImmanuelCan from the other forum? Yes, or no, it actually is neither here nor there, I'm just curious. — god must be atheist

And this was my answer:

Personally, I very rarely frequent online forums. I happen to work from home at the moment so I have a bit of spare time to engage in discussions here. — Apollodorus

Obviously, the answer is NO.

I've already forgot about the Online Philosophy Club. That is not the one I thought of as lifeless... there is fourth one. I forgot the name quite some time ago.

And yes, Philosophy Now is a cesspool, like you said. I call the participants cannibals, and their interaciton, cannibalism.

Good to hear from you, Toby. I suspected you were lurking back there somewhere, in the shadows, watching, waiting.

I'm want to start a thread about declining standards in this topic or that topic on occasion; I hope that such help to push up quality by pressing the mods to be a bit more active on occasion. I agree that the quality of the posts is much the same as of old, so far as one might ascertain given one's natural preference for recalling good discussions of the past. (No criticism of the Mods intended here - I would make a dreadful moderator; I'd ban every second poster, rendering the forum silent.)

I do not think that we have as many members of the very highest standard as was once the case. They've moved on or been lost, and not replaced.

What I do notice is that the tolerance towards sharp debate has gone down. It is a society wide trend I feel so nothing different here than in reel life. The ad homs and the snide remarks were all there back in the day as much as now, but the hurt or indignation against them was less. — Tobias

Now that you have drawn my attention to this, I think you are quite on the mark. So the question arrises, why should this be so?

Obviously, the answer is NO. — Apollodorus

Maybe to you. I read it and thought it evasive. What did Jesus say? Matt: 5, 37.

Now that you have drawn my attention to this, I think you are quite on the mark. So the question arises, why should this be so? — Banno

The growing sense of entitlement of the stupidly ignorant. Not to be confused with the intellectually challenged, who in many cases are neither ignorant nor stupid. But rather those an education system has failed. They do not know, but they have been taught that does not matter, that they're entitled. And caring only about their entitlement, that if they make enough unpleasant noise, they might just get their way.

With this the rest of us are joined in battle willy-nilly. But most of us do not properly understand the enemy, and that is a problem.

What did Jesus say? Matt: 5, 37 — tim wood

Well then, the "evil one" is in good company.

I read it and thought it evasive. — tim wood

Well, he didn't complain at the time, did he?

To me, "I have a bit of spare time to engage in discussions here" means HERE not THERE on whatever forum he imagines to have seen me.

And I also added:

Additionally, I'm sure the forum admins or whoever they are can confirm that I'm not who you imagine I am. — Apollodorus

If that isn't clear enough, I don't know what is.

The growing sense of entitlement of the stupidly ignorant. — tim wood

...those who do not respond to the criticism, but instead to the criticiser. Yes, that was apparent in several recent threads - the one on Reincarnation, for example, and the "Anthropic Principle meets consciousness" thread; The accidentally resurrected "Tragedy of the Commons" is also infested.

Well, he didn't complain at the time, did he? — Apollodorus

What is this relevant to?

To me, "I have a bit of spare time to engage in discussions here" means HERE not THERE on whatever forum he imagines to have seen me. — Apollodorus

How do you get from here to there?

Additionally, I'm sure the forum admins or whoever they are can confirm that I'm not who you imagine I am. — Apollodorus

Why should anyone else be sure? And how would they know?

Is English your first language?

If that isn't clear enough, I don't know what is. — Apollodorus

I commend as an exercise your working through the logic of this. If it's true, then you do not know what is. You can only know what is if it is clear enough, but it isn't, hence you don't.

I commend as an exercise your working through the logic of this. If it's true, then you do not know what is — tim wood

If you don't know what is, how is it my fault?

You really do not understand, do you. *sigh* Oh, well, this not a therapy site.

Why should anyone else be sure? And how would they know? — tim wood

Well, if they can't be sure and they can't know, then what's the point in asking?

You really do not understand, do you — tim wood

If you don't understand, why should I?

If you don't understand, why should I? — Apollodorus

What is it you imagine I do not understand? And why talk about my understanding when it's your understanding that is in question?

He asked a question, I replied, and that is that.

How is it my fault that he imagines to have seen me on another forum???

How is it my fault that he imagines to have seen me on another forum??? — Apollodorus

He, I, did not imagine. I saw similarities, but I did not imagine you were the other person. that's why I asked.

Well, if they can't be sure and they can't know, then what's the point in asking? — Apollodorus

That's precisely the point of asking. If you say yes, you were, then I'm pretty sure you were him. If you say no, you weren't, I am pretty sure you were not. But you said neither. So the point of asking is to gain information, which you denied to give.

And I also added:

Additionally, I'm sure the forum admins or whoever they are can confirm that I'm not who you imagine I am. — Apollodorus

When did you add this? It was not there in your answer for a long time. The addition must have come at a later edit.

And again, I did not imagine you to be anyone but yourself. I ASKED if you were also the same person.

This is similar to when you go to a class reunion. "Hi, aren't you so-and-so??" that people ask each other not having met for twenty or forty years. You have a feeling, but not KNOWLEDGE or imagination that the other person is so-and-so. This is asked then, are you so-and-so.

And your answer was evasive. I asked you a straight question; you did not say yes or no. You said you have a busy schedule with work, or something to that effect, and you come here when you have the time. Well, you did not say that this has always been the case. And if it has always been the case, then chances are that in the past you also had some free time to post between busy times, since the job has presumably not changed. And if the job did change, then there is no disclosure of the past.

This much on being evasive.

Apollodufius, you are just out of your depth in this forum. You are tearing your hair out in desperation to show us you are right, but no, we don't take your arguments riddled with holes and ill logic at face value. Sorry. Our response to your posts will not change, as long as you keep posting in the same vain vein.

Apparently you do not understand the plain language of this exchange, or you refuse to. Neither is much good.

The growing sense of entitlement of the stupidly ignorant. Not to be confused with the intellectually challenged, who in many cases are neither ignorant nor stupid. But rather those an education system has failed. They do not know, but they have been taught that does not matter, that they're entitled. And caring only about their entitlement, that if they make enough unpleasant noise, they might just get their way. — tim wood

Geez - you and Synthesis - it's nothing but hell in a handbasket, when I was a boy, kids these days.