Didn't touch your posts personally but that thread is still here.

Didn't touch your posts personally but that thread is still here. — StreetlightX

Ok I have found the thread. So presumably it was just a few posts removed. But for what reason?

What criteria do the mods use for the removal of posts and/or threads? — A Seagull

A chicken is slaughtered by the High Moderatum of the Forum who drags out the bird's innards onto the altar and searches for the gizzard. If the gizzard is found to be insufficiently bright and firm, the Post or Thread is struck from the record and the offal is then handed warm, wet, and stinking to the corroding and offensive author.

The chicken is forthwith barbecued and enjoyed by the Moderata on duty.

Hunger raises the standards by which the gizzard is judged.

My replies were deleted, too. The mod who did it, if he sees this, will probably just tell us that they were deleted for being off-topic and unproductive. The mods have a low tolerance for sarcasm and getting off topic. It's irritating, but for whatever reason, those things tend to bring out their anal retentiveness.

Your chicken's gizzard was found wanting. The Moderators are inscrutable and therefore irrefutable.

Mod's ways are not our ways.

I deleted them, and the reason was that they were all single-sentence or very brief petty jibes, jokes, or just didn't add that much to the discussion. This was spread over two pages, and the creator of the discussion understandably complained about it. I left the first several comments, which was the exchange between Thorongil and the other member who's name I can't remember right now, because they were more on point.

In fact, you can take the very first post in that thread, by Thorongil, as an example of an acceptable post. If the rest were more like that, in terms of being on-topic and in terms of length, then I wouldn't have deleted them. Not all posts have to be lengthy, but the posts in that discussion could have been more substantial, and those who had posted replies in that discussion which got deleted could have put more effort into it.

The mod who did it, if he sees this, will probably just tell us that they were deleted for being off-topic and unproductive. — Thorongil

Yes, basically.

What criteria do the mods use for the removal of posts and/or threads? — A Seagull

See the site guidelines at the top of the home page. The site guidelines, and replies upon request, are all you're going to get, so if you expect anything else, like a rule book, then you're going to be disappointed.

And without that information and with no obvious breach of a guideline, one can only conclude that the removal was arbitrary or perhaps it did not fall within some hidden agenda of the mods. — A Seagull

It was obvious to me what was wrong, and it probably was - or would have been - obvious to others. I'm confident that any of the other site staff would have also seen it as a problem and taken action, or at least considered taking action.

In either case it seems pointless in posting on this forum. — A Seagull

Melodramatic.

All my replies in that thread were deleted.

Mod's ways are not our ways. — Thorongil

It seems that the mods are pushing this place to become more academic and less communal. That is a mistake.

This is not what most people who participate on this forum want. A forum isn't an academic journal, and mixing the two doesn't work.

In the beginning, they allowed any kind of post pretty much (apart from obvious flaming, swearing, advertising, etc.). But with time, they've been tightening the standards, because the forum grew, and it's ranked #1 on Google for "philosophy forum", so it's much easier to be found organically.

It's a pity, but many of the people running this forum either have no interest to grow it, or if they do, they don't understand how to go about it (hint: give people what they want).

It's a pity, but many of the people running this forum either have no interest to grow it, or if they do, they don't understand how to go about it (hint: give people what they want). — Agustino

This forum doesn't intend to cater to the lowest possible denominator.

This forum doesn't intend to cater to the lowest possible denominator. — Benkei

That's the kind of thinking that misses opportunities. Anyone who is interested in philosophy should be hooked in - it's not the healthy that are in need of a doctor, but the sick.

That's the kind of thinking that misses opportunities. Anyone who is interested in philosophy should be hooked in - it's not the healthy that are in need of a doctor, but the sick. — Agustino

What opportunities? This isn't a business, in case you hadn't noticed. We're not looking for converts either as you seem to imply. It's a hobby for a dedicated team of moderators.

In any case, all this second guessing is a typical example of bachelors’ wives and maidens’ children being well taught. Feel free to start your own site and create your own opportunities. But I suspect you'll be around telling everybody else what to do without having any real accomplishments to your own name.

We're not looking for converts either as you seem to imply. — Benkei

And you're proud of that? >:O In either case, I never implied that. You seem to have reading difficulties. Or comprehension difficulties. Either way, just to remind you:

either have no interest to grow it, or if they do, they don't understand how to go about it — Agustino

What opportunities? This isn't a business, in case you hadn't noticed. — Benkei

Everything is a business. Even a Church is a business. Any community is a business. Any organism is either growing or dying. To grow effectively, and in a lasting manner, it must cater to the needs of its people. It's quite simple. I know you have a personal vendetta against me, but it's not my fault that you can't put 2 and 2 together.

But I suspect you'll be around telling everybody else what to do without having any real accomplishments to your own name. — Benkei

>:O >:O >:O - you're talking to me about accomplishments? Don't make me laugh. Please. Before you make more of a fool of yourself look close to home. How much value have you added to this community? Think about that ;)

And you're proud of that? >:O In either case, I never implied that. You seem to have reading difficulties. Or comprehension difficulties. Either way, just to remind you:
either have no interest to grow it, or if they do, they don't understand how to go about it — Agustino

Yes, and my initial answer was an explanation as to why there is no interest but your usual recalcitrant nature interpreted it as an argument. To which I then replied, which you then bring back to your original point to point out you really don't have a point except sharing another useless opinion how things should work according to Agustino.

But hey, of course I'm the one that has a reading disability. :-}

To which I then replied, which you then bring back to your original point to point out you really don't have a point except sharing another useless opinion how things should work according to Agustino. — Benkei

Big surprise! Did you expect me to tell you how things should work according to my grandmother?! >:O

A chicken is slaughtered by the High Moderatum of the Forum who drags out the bird's innards onto the altar and searches for the gizzard. If the gizzard is found to be insufficiently bright and firm, the Post or Thread is struck from the record and the offal is then handed warm, wet, and stinking to the corroding and offensive author. — Bitter Crank

Geez Louise. :-O

Ok I have found the thread. So presumably it was just a few posts removed. But for what reason? — A Seagull

Why does it matter? It can be a bit of a shock to your ego unless you - like myself - post certain things knowing that it could be deleted and then smile when it happens. Roll your eyes and move on, the forum is for intellectual fun that alleviates night-time boredom for those of us who are single and hate social networking.

All my replies in that thread were deleted. — Agustino

You have my heartfelt sympathy.

It seems that the mods are pushing this place to become more academic and less communal. That is a mistake. — Agustino

A community should have rules and respect. It isn't respectful to the creator of the discussion to fill up their discussion with low-quality or off-topic posts which get in the way of having the proper discussion which the creator of that discussion evidently desired, nor should it be tolerated by moderators.

Two people were engaged in a petty quarrel, and others only contributed single-sentence jokes.

Why does it matter? It can be a bit of a shock to your ego unless you - like myself - post certain things knowing that it could be deleted and then smile when it happens. Roll your eyes and move on, the forum is for intellectual fun that alleviates night-time boredom for those of us who are single and hate social networking. — TimeLine

(Y)

A community should have rules and respect. — Sapientia

You are right about that, I agree.

It isn't respectful to the creator of the discussion to fill up their discussion with low-quality or off-topic posts which get in the way of having the proper discussion which the creator of that discussion evidently desired, nor should it be tolerated by moderators. — Sapientia

Well I think the posts weren't getting in the way of anything. Actually quite the contrary: the thread is now long forgotten (almost off the first page) and those "off-topic" jokes etc. certainly got the thread starter more clicks on his thread by virtue of keeping it at the top for longer - and hence more people getting a chance to read his opening post. So the jokes were actually benefiting him - and if we were in a court of law, certainly an argument could be very successfully made that in this particular situation the benefit most certainly exceeded the harm.

If someone is interested to contribute, they are not harmed at all by the slightly off-topic posts. I mean, do you believe that I will stop having a proper discussion with you here because X, Y or Z starts talking about what a great night they had at the movies (completely off-topic this time)? I will just ignore them. Read the first two words of their post, see what it is about, and move on. But obviously I don't think completely off-topic posts should be allowed, but just giving a more extreme example so you understand.

Do you think, Sapientia, that there's something wrong if a thread has multiple conversations going on inside? I see this quite frequently. There are threads in which I participate where I'm speaking with say 2-3 other participants, and while that convo is going on, 2-3 others are speaking about something completely different - and I actually have no clue what exactly they're speaking about because I never read their conversation (well, usually).

Like look in this thread. I'm having a separate discussion with you, then TimeLine is making a separate comment to Seagull, etc. A thread is like a dinner party with multiple tables inside. People can move around, and go from table to table as they desire. When someone cusses at me - like Benkei - then obviously I will go off-topic to address it. But that doesn't ruin the rest of the thread, it's just like what would happen in an actual conversation.

That's the kind of thinking that misses opportunities. Anyone who is interested in philosophy should be hooked in - it's not the healthy that are in need of a doctor, but the sick. — Agustino

There are many websites catering to the lowest common denominator, in every category of website you can think of. The achievement here lies in rising above the LCD and aiming for "mid-brow" quality. "High brow" quality (sites like Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy) requires major institutional support.

As for needing a doctor, we are not going to be the Mayo Clinic of philosophy websites. We are a volunteer-run aid station.

It seems that the mods are pushing this place to become more academic and less communal. That is a mistake. — Agustino

What do you think the academic credentials of the moderators are? As far as I know, none of them are any more academic than you are. Like you they have jobs, families, laundry, meals, other interests--lives, in other words, that take up much of their time.

From what I can tell (and from experience here and on the other PF) they are serious readers of philosophy (far, far more than I am) and, for some odd reason, willing to slog through all the text we all generate. Their's is a tremendous contribution to the quality, consistency, and vitality of the site.

Everything is a business. Even a Church is a business. Any community is a business. Any organism is either growing or dying. To grow effectively, and in a lasting manner, it must cater to the needs of its people. It's quite simple. I know you have a personal vendetta against me, but it's not my fault that you can't put 2 and 2 together. — Agustino

Everything isn't a business; there are other models. I'd say we are an "enterprise of common interest". That any enterprise might have to rent a room or a server and software in which to meet doesn't make us a "business".

An organism grows if it meets its needs as the kind of organism it is. The Philosophy Forum caters to the needs of people who want a reasonably orderly, not academic but reasonably serious place to discuss philosophical ideas. The moderators and contributors make it "reasonably orderly" and "reasonably serious" or not.

I don't think anybody here is running a vendetta against you. You take 'minority positions' on many issues and defend them vigorously. This stimulates a lot of response from others, which is a very good thing. Don't take equally vigorous offense responses as vendettas; they are just "in kind" responses.

Why does it matter? It can be a bit of a shock to your ego unless you - like myself - post certain things knowing that it could be deleted and then smile when it happens. — TimeLine

Exactly.
I should have known better than to derail the thread in trying to correct a grammatical error that in the end wasn't an error. I could have walked away but no, I had to continue to play with the language about the piece of pie. But it was meant in fun, I meant no harm and the word play actually alleviated the stress I am under (none of which should matter to my TPF family but having my Mother in law staying with us is enough said) if even just for a moment.
So Thank you Sapientia for cleaning up after I was playing in the thread. I will try to keep that thought play in the lounge.

Exactly.
I should have known better than to derail the thread in trying to correct a grammatical error that in the end wasn't an error. I could have walked away but no, I had to continue to play with the language about the piece of pie. But it was meant in fun, I meant no harm and the word play actually alleviated the stress I am under (none of which should matter to my TPF family but having my Mother in law staying with us is enough said) if even just for a moment.
So Thank you Sapientia for cleaning up after I was playing in the thread. I will try to keep that thought play in the lounge. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I thought you'd understand and take it on the chin, and your reply has just confirmed that. If only others would take a leaf out of your book and not be so melodramatic. Comments like that one of yours that I deleted are really no big deal in and of themselves, and in isolation, I would have probably left it alone, but I judged that, collectively, it had gone a bit too far - two pages worth - and then I noticed that the original poster had expressed a complaint about it, which I could relate to and agreed with, so I took action. It really is no big deal, but I suppose there'll always be those who kick up a fuss - and they'll probably be joined by the likes of Agustino and Thorongil, who, in such circumstances, seem unable to resist an opportunity to stick their oar in, and jump at the chance to criticise moderator action.

and Thorongil, who, in such circumstances, seem unable to resist an opportunity to stick their oar in, and jump at the chance to criticise moderator action. — Sapientia

Ah yes, the moderator's life. Such a hard lot.

There are many websites catering to the lowest common denominator, in every category of website you can think of. The achievement here lies in rising above the LCD and aiming for "mid-brow" quality. "High brow" quality (sites like Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy) requires major institutional support. — Bitter Crank

Okay, I agree with all that. The target of this forum, the way I see it, is anyone seriously interested in a philosophy. That's what I mean (and thought Benkei meant) by LCD.

Their's is a tremendous contribution to the quality, consistency, and vitality of the site. — Bitter Crank

No doubt that moderating is important, and I agree the moderating team had been doing a good job initially. However, as the forum has grown and pressures have lessened (in terms of will the site be able to survive?), the quality of the moderation has degraded. There are several reasons for this:

• The obvious one - each member becomes less important when you have a way to get new members that's reliable and hard to overcome (organic reach) - thus moderators can enforce stricter standards, and even show bias, something that just wouldn't have made sense initially.
• People who moderated old PF have been appointed moderators here - which is a problem because that brought with it the same problems old PF was plagued by - the same kind of mindset.
• Moderators ALL share virtually the same religious outlook (atheists) - thus they cannot be unbiased, nor are they fully capable to determine what are good quality phil. of religion posts.
• Moderators (7 out of 8) are leftists, and therefore the forum carries a heavier political bias, with right-leaning views not being accepted or tolerated sufficiently - that's why innocent people like Emptyheady got banned - which is also the reason I had stopped posting in protest.
• Moderators never admit to being wrong (or better said, they're self-righteous) - which has caused schisms within the community, and has alienated some members, including, for example, the thread starter here.

Hopefully those points above are all clear. The solution?

Have a wider variety of moderators, holding different views, in order to ensure that as many people in the community as possible are adequately represented. Maybe even hold moderator elections. Decide on some standards for who can run (by post count, nomination, etc.) - cause we don't want someone who just came around to run for example - and do it. Moderators can then switch around, and the community can be adequately represented.

You saw the recent polls by Thorongil. There's a lot more right-leaning and religious people than we would have thought around. These people are being quiet for a reason, because their views aren't accepted in a friendly way. Not everyone is willing to fight like myself.

Everything isn't a business; there are other models. I'd say we are an "enterprise of common interest". That any enterprise might have to rent a room or a server and software in which to meet doesn't make us a "business". — Bitter Crank

Okay, I didn't mean that we're a business in the sense of we're out here to make money. So don't misinterpret that. But we are out here to maintain & grow this community - hopefully - and if we're not, then I think we should be.

The Philosophy Forum caters to the needs of people who want a reasonably orderly, not academic but reasonably serious place to discuss philosophical ideas. The moderators and contributors make it "reasonably orderly" and "reasonably serious" or not. — Bitter Crank

Yes, yes, I agree with this.

I don't think anybody here is running a vendetta against you. — Bitter Crank

Okay, but I didn't refer to people who just disagree with my positions. Yes, of course they're not running a vendetta, they're just expressing their views, just as I am. But some people do take things personally and are running a vendetta, I know that for a fact.

Don't take equally vigorous offense responses as vendettas — Bitter Crank

I don't - when they're about the issue, or even about myself in the context of the issue, I take no beef with it. But some people pop into threads out of nowhere just to insult (instead of add value or discuss the issue) - that, now, is a personal vendetta, that they should at least admit to.

It really is no big deal, but I suppose there'll always be those who kick up a fuss - and they'll probably be joined by the likes of Agustino and Thorongil, who, in such circumstances, seem unable to resist an opportunity to stick their oar in, and jump at the chance to criticise moderator action. — Sapientia

You have that wrong, I'm all for a strong moderating team, but not for unnecessary interventions.

Have a wider variety of moderators — Agustino

That would mean people like you stepping up to the plate. You too could be a moderator!

I would agree that the moderatori are more left than right, more atheist and less theist. This doesn't represent the demographic of the United States (which demographically is the opposite) but it might represent EU countries better. It does represent the academic faculty profile in the US which tends now to be more leftist and atheist.

I don't know whether my posts are getting weeded out or not, here or in the old PF. I don't know whether I'm getting a pass or not. I haven't been tracking it.

Were I a moderator, there are posts I would delete. A few people take offense too vigorously with too little provocation, and I would at least tell them to calm down. Some posters have very poor writing sills, and sometimes one can't really tell what they are trying to get at. Some posters are repetitious. Some, like me, are too verbose. Oops, verbosity reach critical stage... must stop.

That would mean people like you stepping up to the plate. You too could be a moderator! — Bitter Crank

No, I actually don't think I'm fit to be a moderator, but I would have other people to propose: Mariner, Thorongil, yourself, John and a few more! I'd aim for a mix between theist/atheist, progressive/conservative, just to make everything fair.

Oops, verbosity reach critical stage... must stop. — Bitter Crank

>:O

Why does it matter? — TimeLine

It matters to me because I am a philosopher. I like to understand things. Further I do not accept things at face value, I prefer to look beneath the façade.

In either case it seems pointless in posting on this forum. — A Seagull
Melodramatic. — Sapientia

I don't know why you think that was melodramatic, there are lots of other philosophy forums out there.

Perhaps the problem is that "The philosophy forum" is a bit of a misnomer. Perhaps you could rename it : "The subset of philosophy that allows for the deletion of posts based on arbitrary judgement and a hidden agenda forum." I know it is a bit of a mouthful, but at least you would avoid the risk of being done for false advertising. It could also be a point of difference between this forum and other philosophy forums.