A suggestion regarding post-quality related deletions

VagabondSpectre

Posts which are of low quality writing and grammar, or low quality philosophical content, are understandably removed (lest the main feed cut a highly unappealing silhouette), but it has the regrettable ramification of generally upsetting the original poster. Ideally, someone will respond to criticism, moderator PMs, and post moderation by putting more effort and thought into their posts, but very often I have seen such moderation and criticism be taken very badly by the affected, which generally ends with them leaving the site. I do believe that this site can be a place where people can learn and improve their communication skills (though it is not its/our responsibility to be patient teachers), but being emotionally recoiled to escape velocity early on by the pang of post deletion has surely deprived some of such an opportunity, and the rest of the forum of their possible future contributions.

As an alternative to deleting posts which would be deleted solely for the reason of poor writing (punctuation/grammar/structure) or inadequate philosophical content (simplistic/esoteric/abstract/incoherent) they could be moved to a category of their own (one which does not populate in the all discussions section). This would not be a graveyard, nor a dunce corner, but instead a "construction site" with an emphasis on improvement and constructive criticism rather than denigration.

A stuck thread can explain that it is a section for threads which do not quite meet the standards of the forum, and offers some basic pointers people can use to actually bring their posts up to snuff. If some people find the threads within worth responding to, then they would be free to do so. Importantly, this could avoid or mitigate the emotional impact on a poster when their thread is deemed below standard, and better function as quality promoting sanction. Not merely a grotesquerie, it would also passively set precedents in a kind of case law which moderators can use to better clarify when it is best to move a post to this separate category, or from the forum entirely.

Who knows, having sword of Hanocles hang over all of us would probably incentivize us all to do better; perhaps some existing posts which do not face deletion (it being so harsh) would none-the-less be fit for such a separate forum category.

Thoughts?

Oh, this idea again.

VagabondSpectre

↪Sapientia

There's nothing new under the digital sun I guess...

As I was not privy to the original discussion, could you share any information about its conclusion?

↪VagabondSpectre

Well, Posty McPostface had a similar idea with his "draft thread" which he created not so long ago, and similar ideas of a separate place for content below the standard have been raised multiple times before. There has been a consensus against the idea, at least amongst the staff at the time, on previous occasions.

If it was a category, then discussions there would appear on the homepage by default, just like other discussions, and it wouldn't be immediately clear which category they belong to. So, in practical terms, it wouldn't really be any different than if they were left in their original category.

Personally, I don't like the idea. I think that it would be an unnecessary distraction which would lower the quality of the forum by neglecting to remove poor quality content. If, after reading the guidelines, and attempting to abide by them, the staff decide that your comment or discussion doesn't meet the standard, then it should be deleted, and you would then have the option of contacting the staff with any questions or complaints, or using the Feedback forum, and/or taking another stab at it. That's fair enough, I think.

BC

sword of Hanocles — VagabondSpectre

↪VagabondSpectre

Did you mean "sword of Damocles" or was this a pun on the House of Hanover?

↪Sapientia

I don't know how the site software works. Too bad there can not be a category of "threads needing grammatical/content rehabilitation" not viewable by all.

One of the problems for people who have posts deleted or get banned for low quality is that they did not sign up for having their self-worth attacked on the grounds of bad grammar or inadequately considered writing. Most students who know they are going to be evaluated don't like it either, but they at least have more reason to expect red ink.

My guess is that most people did not read the guidelines until they found they were in violation. Most people don't read directions, either, until all else fails. Do I really need to read the directions for operating an electric toaster? Or posting on a free web site? c

Is there a way of requiring assent before people are allowed to post? Like the way every two-bit web site is able to compel us to agree to the newly revised terms of service? So, "I understand that moderators will evaluate my writing and may find it deficient and remove it. There is no appeal, so suffer, bitch! I will strive to do better in the future." Agree (check) Disagree (check)

Something like that.

Is there a way of requiring assent before people are allowed to post? Like the way every two-bit web site is able to compel us to agree to the newly revised terms of service? So, "I understand that moderators will evaluate my writing and may find it deficient and remove it. There is no appeal, so suffer, bitch! I will strive to do better in the future." Agree (check) Disagree (check)

Something like that. — Bitter Crank

Not to my knowledge, but that's an idea for feature requests. The wording might need a few alterations here and there, but other than that it would've got my vote.

BC

↪Sapientia

I suppose "So suffer, bitch" might be viewed as somewhat unwelcoming.

Benkei

If you submit an article for a magazine, there isn't a "nice try but no fish" page either. Some leeway is already given with respect to non-native speakers. I'd say good riddance if post deletion means you throw a tantrum.

0 thru 9

So, "I understand that moderators will evaluate my writing and may find it deficient and remove it. There is no appeal. Suffer, bitch. I will strive to do better in the future." Agree (check) Disagree (check) — Bitter Crank

Good idea. That is one kickass disclaimer! :up:

↪VagabondSpectre

The specifics of your idea may or may not be possible to implement, but the thought and feeling behind it are commendable. New members might need a little patience and direction. They would find a good example in your well-written posts. There are certain little things about this wonderful forum that might possibly benefit from tweaking or updating, IMHO. Could be a software limitation thing. Or maybe the moderators are just too busy driving their Lambos and hanging with Elon Musk and the Winklevoss twins. :snicker:

Baden

The specifics of your idea may or may not be possible to implement, but the thought and feeling behind it are commendable. — 0 thru 9

I tend towards this view especially with the homepage set up here, but we'll continue to listen.

Or maybe the moderators are just too busy driving their Lambos and hanging with Elon Musk and the Winklevoss twins. :snicker: — 0 thru 9

Yes, we recently got a fifty percent payrise on our zero dollars per lifetime rate. Chuffed with that.

Streetlight

It's not a bad idea in principle - and yeah, ideas like it have been raised before - but 1) the forum mainpage software wouldn't distinguish between L-plate posts and proper ones, meaning the clutter of bad posts will still be there, and 2) we (mods) are primarily here to keep good discussion in place, not - as charitible as it would be - to pull up the socks of bad discussions. We're users before we are mods, here to participate in discussion like everyone else, and spending time and effort to correct subpar posts by usually subpar posters (the bar is not high, and to fall below it usually takes a special kind of bad post/er) is simply not something anyone - mod or not - wants to do.

And yeah, Posty had his 'draft' thread which fall away pretty quickly, because its clear no one is here to play janitor.

Baden

We're users before we are mods — StreetlightX

:up:

Baden

To expand on that, we care about the site and want it to work as well as possible, but we derive most of our enjoyment from posting just like everyone else, so we're not likely to want to make our own non-posting responsibilities more complicated or burdensome than they need to be. If that means less hand-holding, fine, we're likely to think the responsibility should lie more with the poster than with us.

TheWillowOfDarkness

I find the idea a bit questionable from an activity point of view. If a post is so incoherent, esoteric or lacking in quality that it runs afoul of the rules, I'm uncertain how it will amount to a substantial discussion amongst the community.

My sense is such post will languish at the bottom of the forum drawer where no-one looks. Maybe a few esoteric conversations might run between a couple of users who grasp what the other is getting at (though that might not be a good thing, if they are only talking crackpottery).

I think there is absolutely value in people drafting threads and getting input from other people. Such a process, to would seem to me, would be better conducted on an individual basis, where the writer consulates users knowledgable in that area. Shouting out to a whole forum doesn't seem to be a very effective way of handling such a development process. Though, this general involves a focus and relationships I've not seen too much of on this forum.

BC

↪TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, the disclaimer suggestion I made would at least make sure people knew that there were standards and that they would be upheld. Having to assent to the disclaimer gets around people never reading the guidelines (or the directions).

Baden

↪Bitter Crank

I like the idea as long as it requires no extra work on my part. :100:

Baden

So, just copy-paste your version minus the suffer bitch part, down with that...

BC

↪Baden

The benefit of the disclaimer which people have to check to begin posting is that it gives the moderators more standing.

Even if one wanted to uplift the ungrammatical, it takes too long and is too complicated to do in this kind of setting. The untaught will just have to get used to being shunned until they gird up their loins and begin studying the ways and means of proper English.

VagabondSpectre

If it was a category, then discussions there would appear on the homepage by default, just like other discussions, and it wouldn't be immediately clear what category they belong to. So, in practical terms, it wouldn't really be any different than if they were left in their original categor — Sapientia

I was hoping that this section could be omitted from the all discussions section/home page somehow. I realize now such a feature is not available, as

↪StreetlightX

points out.

Personally, I don't like the idea. I think that it would be an unnecessary distraction which would lower the quality of the forum by neglecting to remove poor quality content. If, after reading the guidelines, and attempting to abide by them, the staff decide that your comment or discussion doesn't meet the standard, then it should be deleted, and you would then have the option of contacting the staff with any questions or complaints, or using the Feedback forum, and/or taking another stab at it. That's fair enough, I think. — Sapientia

It's fair enough, to be sure, I just wondered how much we could possibly gain by softening the emotional blows of moderation (mainly in turnover rate). As an aside, Are there any reasons why we have no "graveyard" section where such posts could remain locked in perpetuity, if only to serve as record and cautionary examples? (I notice that sometimes the thing that gets to posters the most is that they had no copies of their removed posts, and perhaps being able to re-read them would prove didactic for them). It would be great for moderator transparency but it might also just wind up being a source of drama, or as Streetlight also points out, not worth it as the bar is already so low.

Did you mean "sword of Damocles" or was this a pun on the House of Hanover? — Bitter Crank

Admittedly not one of my finer puns. I enjoy making Damocles metaphors, and for some reason among the moderator staff I'm not unfamiliar with, Hanover hangs out as the edgy one. :D

The specifics of your idea may or may not be possible to implement, but the thought and feeling behind it are commendable. New members might need a little patience and direction. They would find a good example in your well-written posts. There are certain little things about this wonderful forum that might possibly benefit from tweaking or updating, IMHO. Could be a software limitation thing. Or maybe the moderators are just too busy driving their Lambos and hanging with Elon Musk and the Winklevoss twins — 0 thru 9

To expand on that, we care about the site and want it to work as well as possible, but we derive most of our enjoyment from posting just like everyone else, so we're not likely to want to make our own non-posting responsibilities more complicated or burdensome than they need to be. If that means less hand-holding, we're likely then to think the responsibility should lie more with the poster than with us. — Baden

In my head it didn't create additional work or headaches for the moderators, they would just move offending threads and the stuck thread would explain why it's in that category. I don't begrudge the mods any hip-shooting though, it's a tedious and thankless task they're volunteering to do, so anything that makes that job more difficult had better be well worth it.

It was worth considering though...

Baden

↪VagabondSpectre

Yes, still listening. I'm not rejecting it out of hand. There have been a few occasions where warnings or deletions have escalated into situations that made a ban our only option. And we would obviously like to avoid that if possible. Banning stopped being fun a long time ago and will not be fun again until Hanover goes nuts and tells us all to fuck off.

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪Bitter Crank

I don't think it does. People ignore guidelines all time. I mean its fine for transmitting information about the guidelines and putting in place the paperwork for any ensuing moderation, but it doesn't get to the heart of the underlying question here. The focus of this topic seems to be involving or bringing up people who don't yet meet a standard.

Having a system to which we can point and say: "We pointed out a rule" (as fine as it might be for other purposes) doesn't address this question about the knowledge/skill/participation of those who don;t meet the rules.

BC

So, just copy-paste your version minus the suffer bitch part, down with that... — Baden

Where am I supposed to paste this?

"I understand that moderators will evaluate my writing and if they find it deficient, they might remove it. I understand that there is no appeal; the moderators' actions are final. As a TPF user, I will strive to improve my writing forthwith."
Agree (check) and welcome to The Philosophy Forum
Disagree (check) and forgo participation in The Philosophy Forum

Baden

↪Bitter Crank

Oh, I meant I'd do it if we can figure out a way to integrate it. And I was being a bit tongue in cheek. If we do put up a disclaimer, we'll polish your rough-hewn words a bit to make them shine as they deserve.

VagabondSpectre

↪TheWillowOfDarkness

Just to clarify I'm not exactly advocating for erecting a "TPF Academy for Members Who Cant Post Good And Want To Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too", but more of a kind of thread purgatory which is out of the way (serving the function of post removal) while giving people a chance to improve themselves.

There have been occasions where deleted posts are characterized by some as potentially worthwhile, and these edge cases would also be served by such a purgatory like category.

My main consideration is turnover-rate actually, and while I have no way of knowing how often the hurt feelings of post removal actually result in the loss of a member (or how much a segregated category for low quality threads would mitigate that pang), retaining one or two members every now and then would add up over-time.

Srap Tasmaner

Some sites allow users to sort themselves in ways this one doesn't. Sub-forums for homework help, for instance. Or something labeled "for beginners" in some friendly way. We do get a regular stream of people describing themselves as new to philosophy , here to dip their toes, try out their pet theory on others, etc.

I suppose it could be an option to move certain posts into such a category, but the point is some people might use it on their own. It would be nice to have a social norm of being a bit kinder and gentler when commenting in such threads-- don't know whether moderation should have a different standard though-- and only people interested in helping others learn should be there.

(It feels like there are already too many categories here and the category system isn't used all that well, so recommending yet another category feels wrong. Still.)

Baden

Or something labeled "for beginners" in some friendly way. We do get a regular stream of people describing themselves as new to philosophy , here to dip their toes, try out their pet theory on others, etc. — Srap Tasmaner

That's what the Learning Centre category is for. There is a question subcategory in there and resources for newbies (which anyone can add to).

Sub-forums for homework help, for instance. — Srap Tasmaner

On this one, I'd say no. We're not here to promote laziness. Students need to do their own homework or at least be able to start a proper OP that stimulates conversation from which they can then draw ideas.

Srap Tasmaner

↪Baden

Oh I don't think *we* should have a homework category-- just an example of a self-sorting option other sites have.

I took another look at the learning center before I posted, but it just doesn't really have a spot for "My First Attempt at Doing Philosophy" posts.

I remember another example, a writing forum I was on years ago, that had categories roughly divided by how harsh you could expect the criticism to be. A sort of "shallow end"/"deep end" thing. It's not that the shallow end means starting from 0, but at least you could avoid the deep end if you wanted to, and others could completely ignore the shallow end.

Shawn

Well, I still encourage the draft thread to be utilized. In practice, it would indeed be too burdensome on any team of moderators to sort out through all the mess, given the nature of philosophic questions, as opposed to something like a close ended mathematical question.

One other alternative, is to create a group of storm-reporters, who can flag any dumb and stupid posts and report them as soon as possible.

Shawn

No, but seriously, please report posts more often, and if possible can we add a disclaimer as to what specifically is being reported, to ease the lives of the current moderators?

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪VagabondSpectre

I guess my issue is more I'd consider everyone one the site in that category. The relevant between myself, SX or Bittercrank and such a new poster is only that the latter fails to meet a standard for engaging with community.

If the goal is for them to be part of the community, I don't see why the goal would be just to make a space for them make statements that go unnoticed. I'm not sure how it really benefits them because learning from other makes up such a large part of development.

I'd rather see them engaged with the rest of the community rather cordened off to their own hall where no-one really goes.

I guess you could have a space to put posts that aren't good enough, but I worry about the distinction it creates and fear it falls into a motivatation outside helping people learn.

Marcus de Brun

This is an interesting thread. There is a lot of academic metaphor, which is also somewhat relevant in the context of recently suppressed ideas pertaining to formal educational processes.

I would have assumed that we are all 'students' of philosophy.

However since the distinction has been made and some are admittedly 'students' and some are not, one might assume from much of the foregoing that moderation on the forum is conducted by the non-students, or simply the 'wise ones'. I don't mean to be flippant here, however if one is to exercise the authority to deem a particular idea or proposal immature, deficient or un-philosophical, and deal it a non-negotiable death blow; all users of the form (students and wise-ones), should have the freedom to question the credentials of the 'wise-one' who has effectively silenced the idea.

Therefore it is not unfair to ask, what are the credentials of the moderator? And who is moderating the moderators?

If these questions are not asked (preferably they are asked by the wise-ones themselves rather than obstreperous 'students'), we run the risk of something of a cabal forming, where self professed 'wise-ones' need only obtain entry to the cabal in order to impose their own world view upon a particular forum via the suppression of ideas or individuals that they simply disagree with.

Moderation is thankless and essential, however, by definition it should be conducted with moderation and equanimity and upon the basis of a credential of some kind (formal or informal), a credential other than the fact that the suppressed idea is simply not-liked.

Certainly if an idea or statement has the potential to cause harm or hurt it should be immediately removed, however if it's only crime is that it hurts the preconceptions or fixed convictions of the 'wise-one', we should be very careful as the forum then runs the risk of becoming confined to the arena of the 'wise-ones'. If this were to become the case the 'wise-ones' might well become the inquisition.

M

A suggestion regarding post-quality related deletions

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions