Another super annoying thing. I hate how when you quote, the quote goes wherever the cursor happens to be. 95% of the time this is in the middle of a sentence, and I have to fix it manually. Doubly annoying on mobile. I think it would be great if the quote always went on the bottom. Then, in the 5% of the cases where I actually want it somewhere else, I can move it.

Probably a "dev" thing, I know.

That's different to my experience on iPhone, or at any rate I haven't noticed any particular latency. But do agree about that annoying feature with quoting.

* Disclaimer: I realize PlushForums is in maintenance mode, and will not be adding any new features. This post is future-oriented.

I just wanted to jot out a quick note. I have noticed a trend towards very short and unthoughtful OPs and very short and unthoughtful replies. Some ideas I have to mitigate against such a thing are:

1. Forum culture. A thoughtful and contemplative culture will presumably perpetuate itself and mitigate against short, unthoughtful posting.

2. Character thresholds. Perhaps in the future it would be helpful to add character thresholds, at least to OPs. For example, OPs must be more than 500 characters.

3. Posting limits. Asynchronous forum software has led to instant messaging-style interactions, which are usually less than philosophical. Thread or post limits could be helpful, at a general level or applied in special cases (e.g. categories, threads, users, etc.). For example, maybe users start with one thread per week and one post per 15 minutes.

4. Limited editing. An unlimited ability to edit posts correlates to lower quality posts and lower quality submissions. Perhaps edits should only be allowed for a certain amount of time.

5. I am of the mind that things like <site layouts> and phone accessibility have an impact on post quality. Users accessing an instant message-style website through smartphones will produce lower quality content than users accessing a publication-style website through keyboards and screens with enough real estate for comfortable reading.

6. The ability to disincentivize users short of permanently banning them seems important. This could be done with things like temporary bans or posting limits.

I've looked around the web and I've never found any philosophy forum as good as this one. I think there are a number of reasons for that - good moderating, a decent set of contributors, my personal contributions, etc. Maybe highest on the list is the level of participation. If you post something here, it generally gets responses and often a bunch. Those often turn into long, interesting discussions. I think your suggestions will lead to a reduction in participation. Sure we get some dog bones, but the moderators will step in if it's too bad. As Aristotle wrote - Good enough is good enough.

OPs must be more than 500 characters. — Leontiskos

I don't see any advantage in encouraging verbosity. Short is good.

Maybe highest on the list is the level of participation. — T Clark

Yep. And 's suggestions would reduce participation.

I've looked around the web and I've never found any philosophy forum as good as this one. — T Clark

I agree.

Good enough is good enough. — T Clark

I disagree. I don't even know how this is supposed to be a real argument.

I think your suggestions will lead to a reduction in participation. — T Clark

If "participation" is defined as unthoughtful contributions, then that is precisely what my suggestions aim to do. Philosophy is more than random thought-sharing, and there are ways to make an environment more conducive to philosophical contributions.

Short is good. — Banno

Not according to the Site Guidelines and How to Write an OP.

Short is good.
— Banno

Not according to the Site Guidelines and How to Write an OP. — Leontiskos

OPs must be more than 500 characters. — Leontiskos

You made a clear and reasonable presentation of your position in 264 words.

Yeah, it does:

1) Language matters.
Forcing someone to rabbit on at length in order to meet an arbitrary word limit is not conducive to quality.

And

Good OPs are properly focused and relevant — Baden

You made a clear and reasonable presentation of your position in 264 words. — T Clark

There is a difference between characters and words. My post was 1,785 characters. I am only suggesting 500 characters for OPs, which at a minimum is about 70 words. Even your short reply was 597 characters.

an arbitrary word limit — Banno

It is a case in point that you and Clark were both too busy disagreeing with me to even notice that I gave a character limit, not a word limit. Your failure to read what I wrote would perhaps be remedied if you were not allowed to spit out posts one after another in quick succession. :wink:

Bah. You are obsessed with rules. Looks to be an attempt to avoid the sort of spotlight @TonesInDeepFreeze shines on your logical misunderstandings and errors, an extension on your bitching about him posting too much... :rofl:

But it's a non-starter, so not much of an issue.

Bah. You are obsessed with rules. Looks to be an attempt to avoid the sort of spotlight TonesInDeepFreeze shines on your logical misunderstandings and errors, an extension on your bitching about him posting too much... :rofl: — Banno

Have you found that your trolling has become better or worse as you approach your 90's?

In any case, I am flattered that you spend so much time reading my exchanges.

Edit: Since you invited Tones to join in your trolling, I should point out that the posts of his in question are neither overly short nor overly unthoughtful, but that to successively respond to someone a dozen times in a single thread without any intervening response is not conducive to philosophical dialogue. I have only rarely seen this sort of thing.

If you think it trolling, stop trip-trapping over my bridge.

You are obsessed with rules. — Banno

You are obsessed with contradicting me. My first point:

1. Forum culture. A thoughtful and contemplative culture will presumably perpetuate itself and mitigate against short, unthoughtful posting. — Leontiskos

I had considered writing a slightly longer post as a separate thread, entitled, "On the Promotion of a Philosophical Culture." The point is in large part to get people to think about the effect their actions have on the culture and purpose of TPF (and I am not exempt). This is a topic that end-users do not often think about if they have not worked in the backend of a forum. Ideally such users should be invited to sincerely consider how to improve or at least maintain the philosophical culture, lest it devolve. It primarily depends on the way they post, not on rules.

PF has managed to survive more than a dozen years of me despite my best efforts.

Again, your arbitrary rules would dissuade participation.

Again, your arbitrary rules would dissuade participation. — Banno

I look forward to someone engaging my suggestions in a more-than-superficial manner. Something like (3) would unquestionably "discourage participation," just as a speed limit unquestionably "discourages driving." These are superficial objections. The whole premise here is that not each and every post is necessarily a good form of philosophical participation.

PF has managed to survive more than a dozen years of me despite my best efforts. — Banno

And that's something. :up:

1. Forum culture. A thoughtful and contemplative culture will presumably perpetuate itself and mitigate against short, unthoughtful posting. — Leontiskos

It seems balanced and well enough as it is. Sure you don't want it to turn into Reddit where "lol" and "i agree" make up the majority of replies to OPs. People have been banned semi-recently (within the past year or so) for "low quality" posts so that's already a "thing" going on.

If I have a topic I felt mildly interested in and wanted to discuss that isn't quite or perfectly aligned to philosophy but is still intellectually interesting, I'd post it in the Lounge. Or even the Shoutbox. New posters might now know any of these things even exist so it's a learning process.

2. Character thresholds. Perhaps in the future it would be helpful to add character thresholds, at least to OPs. For example, OPs must be more than 500 characters. — Leontiskos

That sounds reasonable, but again I wouldn't be able to find a single thread at least currently on Page 1 that I would call "unreasonable" or without philosophical merit. I like the place but we got to be honest, it's not exactly a beehive of activity. Some very interesting discussions have came about from relatively short and simple questions. Basically, I don't really see people "spamming" the place with useless or low quality lines of inquiry or topics for discussion. Do you?

For example, maybe users start with one thread per week and one post per 15 minutes. — Leontiskos

Some people are more eager than educated, that's true. But many contributors who now have to be manually approved by the site owner are actually very adept and have busy schedules so like to participate rapidly, if that makes sense.

4. Limited editing. An unlimited ability to edit posts correlates to lower quality posts and lower quality submissions. Perhaps edits should only be allowed for a certain amount of time. — Leontiskos

I'm not so sure about this one. It might result in people creating more threads because their understanding of a topic has changed or ignorance of something about it has receded.

5. I am of the mind that things like <site layouts> and phone accessibility have an impact on post quality. Users accessing an instant message-style website through smartphones will produce lower quality content than users accessing a publication-style website through keyboards and screens with enough real estate for comfortable reading. — Leontiskos

Some people can get their point across quite efficiently whether it be by a keyboard or the same keyboard just because it's smaller. It's a valid point, it's more "annoying" to type out a long series of paragraphs, having to error check, undo, etc., but far from unmanageable for an intellectual person with something to contribute.

6. The ability to disincentivize users short of permanently banning them seems important. — Leontiskos

I don't think any would disagree with that. Unless you're an anti-humanist. You'd be surprised.

--

Basically, aside from OPs, there's a lot of short "back and forths" because while the topic is complex people's (mis)understandings of the point the OP was trying to make are actually quite simple or trivial, at least in the mind of the poster. If the person is confused, a simple reply and bare bones logic sentence is the best way to respond. I would say, at least. :chin:

Perhaps edits should only be allowed for a certain amount of time. — Leontiskos

I'd agree with that, as it has been the practice for every other forum I've joined. I make use of the ability to edit but generally try and observe a rule of not editing any post after it has been replied to or quoted. I think many of the other points are up to the discretion of the mods, although I don't think any of them bad ideas.

I'd agree with that, as it has been the practice for every other forum I've joined. I make use of the ability to edit but generally try and observe a rule of not editing any post after it has been replied to or quoted. — Wayfarer

Yes, I agree. I have been part of a no-editing forum, which is a bit extreme but over time it really improved my contributions. I think a few minutes to correct typos is helpful.

I think many of the other points are up to the discretion of the mods, although I don't think any of them bad ideas. — Wayfarer

Thanks. They are just suggestions. I didn't actually expect replies, given that there is no possibility to change anything at the moment. I didn't even know that this thread would bump to the home page.

Some of the points about a philosophical culture hearken back to battles that SophistiCat once fought:

By "dying" I mostly mean degrading. There is a large and thriving community in Youtube comments, for what that is worth. Yes, messages are still being posted, but the intellectual life seems to be seeping out little by little. — SophistiCat

...which goes to the point that quantity of posts is not the only deseridatum.

Bah. You are obsessed with rules. — Banno

:up:

And, this:

Posting limits.For example, maybe users start with one thread per week and one post per 15 minutes. — Leontiskos

I remember you posted similar dullness last year. You have a weird obsession with limiting the participation of the users. Again, you forget that not all the threads are about philosophy. There is The Shoutbox, which works like a chitchat, and it will not be effective to limit the time. On the other hand, look at the political threads. What’s the point of limiting the time and words in those threads? Folks discuss it like a ping pong game. Your proposal would reduce the participation in this forum and make it boring. It seems that you seek a place where a question is posted, then you reply with a huge answer, and that’s all. But one of the main features here is the dynamic nature of the interactions with each other. 

Oh, you also refer to ‘new’ members. But you just joined one year ago. Do you consider yourself a veteran or “new”?

Again, you forget that not all the threads are about philosophy. There is The Shoutbox, which works like a chitchat, and it will not be effective to limit the time. — javi2541997

See the sentence prior to the one you quoted:

Thread or post limits could be helpful, at a general level or applied in special cases (e.g. categories, threads, users, etc.). — Leontiskos

The point here is that such a rule does not have to apply to each thread equally.

On the other hand, look at the political threads. What’s the point of limiting the time and words in those threads? — javi2541997

So they don't turn into a shitshow of petty insults? Political threads are the best place for such a rule.

Oh, you also refer to ‘new’ members. — javi2541997

No I didn't. Did you even read my post? Your lack of reading attentiveness is part of the problem I am pointing to. If you had taken the time to read what I had written these misunderstandings would not need to be remedied.

Good post. :up:

It seems balanced and well enough as it is. — Outlander

I think it has shifted a lot over time, and I again invoke . This is not necessarily a bad thing, but we have to recognize the potential for such shifts and consider a bit of proactivity.

Think of the way that if you put a large number of people on a sloped floor, they will inevitably accumulate towards the bottom. The point here is to think long-term, to think about the philosophical culture, and to consider the long-term health of the forum.

If I have a topic I felt mildly interested in and wanted to discuss that isn't quite or perfectly aligned to philosophy but is still intellectually interesting, I'd post it in the Lounge. — Outlander

Yes, but it is instructive to note that the quality of OPs in the Lounge does not differ significantly from the quality of OPs in the main forum.

That sounds reasonable, but again I wouldn't be able to find a single thread at least currently on Page 1 that I would call "unreasonable" or without philosophical merit. — Outlander

I do, but I won't name names.

Some very interesting discussions have came about from relatively short and simple questions. — Outlander

I think this idea deserves attention. Some of the threads have little to no OP, and end up being an open discussion on a topic. Maybe that's okay, but it also sets a strange standard.

Some people are more eager than educated, that's true. But many contributors who now have to be manually approved by the site owner are actually very adept and have busy schedules so like to participate rapidly, if that makes sense. — Outlander

Sure. I am not really thinking of hard and fast rules. For example, that rule was an idea for what users "start with." Perhaps encouraging more thoughtful and effortful posts for new users would elevate the philosophical standard across the board.

I'm not so sure about this one. It might result in people creating more threads because their understanding of a topic has changed or ignorance of something about it has receded. — Outlander

I don't follow this. If posts can't be edited indefinitely then you think these things would follow?

There was a fellow who decide to rewrite his OP from scratch after about 12 pages of interaction. I argued that he should change his OP back even though he no longer agreed with it, and he did so. I think it is eminently reasonable to prevent that sort of editing.

Some people can get their point across quite efficiently whether it be by a keyboard or the same keyboard just because it's smaller. It's a valid point, it's more "annoying" to type out a long series of paragraphs, having to error check, undo, etc., but far from unmanageable for an intellectual person with something to contribute. — Outlander

Again: think long-term culture. You shift the floor, angle it bit, make the layout more cumbersome for a smartphone than for a computer or tablet, and quietly encourage folks to engage with more philosophically serious devices.

Basically, aside from OPs, there's a lot of short "back and forths" because while the topic is complex people's (mis)understandings of the point the OP was trying to make are actually quite simple or trivial, at least in the mind of the poster. If the person is confused, a simple reply and bare bones logic sentence is the best way to respond. I would say, at least. :chin: — Outlander

Yes, and perhaps (3) just wouldn't work. The question here is whether the short back-and-forths usually devolve into frustration or whether they result in fruitful exchange. The argumentativeness of philosophers can sometimes tilt this towards frustration.

I think it could be interesting to have a particular Member on of the forum as a focus for a month. Where others are actively encouraged to engage in 2-3 of their ideas/thoughts in threads (maybe highlight them somehow).

Obviously it would be a case of asking Member(s) to prepare for this. It could even be a joint effort perhaps? With 2-3 Members focusing on 2-3 particular topics and interacting that way?

Just a passing idea so not thoroughly fleshed out. I think for such thread it would make sense to be a little more strict too in terms of sticking to the topic in the OP rather than like elsewhere on the forum where threads can take a life of their own and meander into other interesting areas of discussion (which is great!). Just feel a more rigid format for something like what I am suggesting could be interesting in building a more thorough engagement with people who are particularly knowledgeable/passionate in more specific areas.

No I didn't. Did you even read my post? — Leontiskos

Yes, you did.

Perhaps encouraging more thoughtful and effortful posts for new users would elevate the philosophical standard across the board. — Leontiskos

So they don't turn into a shitshow of petty insults? Political threads are the best place for such a rule. — Leontiskos

It will not change anything. Politics are already bollocks and a clown show. Don’t expect the users to elaborate thoughtful answers. I can’t see the point of reading the same political dullness right now or in the next 15 minutes. Do you really think it will have a big impact on the constant tit for tat?

- Interesting. Or perhaps a category that is meant to be more specialized and on-topic as far as the threads go.

Yes, you did. — javi2541997

Really? I literally wrote that post after you wrote your reply. :roll:

It will not change anything. Politics are already bollocks and a clown show. Don’t expect the users to elaborate thoughtful answers. I can’t see the point of reading the same political dullness right now or in the next 15 minutes. Do you really think it will have a big impact on the constant tit for tat? — javi2541997

Yes. It is the technological equivalent of, "Take ten deep breaths before responding."

You claim a posting time limit, but you are answering me very quickly. Aren’t you realising this is not a great idea, given the way we are having this exchange?

Surprisingly, I am the one that respects the time limit. More than you do.

You claim a posting time limit, but you are answering me very quickly. Aren’t you realising this is not a great idea, given the way we are having this exchange? — javi2541997

I don't see that our exchange has been of anything approaching high quality. Perhaps the quality would have been improved if there had been limits.

Secondly, I wrote the first post in this thread in five months, and because of this it became a kind of mini-OP. It is a good question whether the Original Poster should be allowed to play by different rules, were (3) to be implemented.

3. Posting limits. Asynchronous forum software has led to instant messaging-style interactions, which are usually less than philosophical. Thread or post limits could be helpful, at a general level or applied in special cases (e.g. categories, threads, users, etc.). For example, maybe users start with one thread per week and one post per 15 minutes. — Leontiskos

In an ideal world the poster of a thread would be able to determine the posting limit within their thread, and perhaps a user would be able to determine their own posting limit generally, with it being publicly displayed so that others are aware of their limitations. But I am familiar with forum software and I do not believe any of them provide such features.