-
S
11.7kI create discussions very infrequently as it is. And when I finally create one, you, or more specifically fdrake, ruin it by littering it with replies to a different opening post. I've just discovered that the whole first page is full of replies to someone else's opening post! Anyone reading it for the first time from the beginning will think that these are replies to my opening post. The other topic was primarily about definitions of terms like "atheism", "theism", and "agnosticism", something that I had no intention or desire of discussing in the discussion that I created.
So, thanks a lot. At least I have received an apology from one of you, but that's not very helpful. I would rather the situation be rectified by moving all of those posts out of my discussion. Yes, it might be a bit of a chore, but you took the time to create this mess, so the least that you could do is put in that same effort to sort it out again. It's not like I'm asking you to climb Mt. Everest. As a former moderator, I know that all that would need to be done is to go along and tick the boxes in each of the replies that shouldn't be there and then split them into a discussion which you could title something like "My Redefinitions of Atheism/Theism/Agnosticism", which was something like what the original title was. -
S
11.7kLook what you've done to the first page! I like to review discussions, and sometimes I go right back to the start. What do I find? A load of replies to someone else's opening post which look as though they're replies to my opening post, and which talk about content other than that of my opening post, and topics that I never wanted to discuss there, such as definitions of the terms involved, and more specifically that other guy's "redefinitions" and opinions.
-
fdrake
6.6k
The reasons I made lots of merges were:
(1) There were a lot of active discussions on the front page with essentially the same content.
(2) The ones with sufficiently similar content got merged.
It wasn't a perfect fit, though none of them were. I am sorry that you feel it was inappropriate.
Regardless, your discussion is still active and on topic, so I won't change my mind about re-splitting it yet. -
S
11.7kThe reasons I made lots of merges were:
(1) There were a lot of active discussions on the front page with essentially the same content.
(2) The ones with sufficiently similar content got merged.
It wasn't a perfect fit, though none of them were. I am sorry that you feel it was inappropriate.
Regardless, your discussion is still active and on topic, so I won't change my mind about re-splitting it yet. — fdrake
Sufficiently similar according to your judgement, and I think that you've misjudged it in this case. It would've been better left untouched.
It's not that it's not a perfect fit - I don't expect perfection. It's that it's a bad fit - and I expect better than that, or at least that errors in judgement are considered and ideally rectified. -
andrewk
2.1k: It is standard practice in online forums that aspire to a certain level of depth to merge discussions that are similar. This happens all the time on StackExchange for example. I understand that the degree of similarity of threads is a matter of opinion and that you feel strongly that the two were very dissimilar. Personally, I agree with fdrake's judgement. It's worthwhile to note that the forum has been bombarded with new threads promoting theism or atheism recently, which is very annoying to those that see such interminable arguments as borderline philosophy at best.
I'm sorry that the merging upset you. I hope you find that fdrake's adjustments above at least mitigate the annoyance. -
fdrake
6.6k
Honestly, if there weren't so many duplicate threads I wouldn't've merged yours with another; there would have been no need to. The reason I chose to merge the other one into yours was because your OP engendered more high quality responses. Again, I'm sorry this has irritated you, and I can understand if you want to hold a grudge. -
S
11.7kIt just means that I'm now more wary of what you moderators might do to a discussion of mine. That's the outcome of this. It has put me off. But if that gets you the results that you were after - less discussions on a similar topic - then you can pat yourselves on the back. I'll try not to make the same mistake in future.
-
Jake
1.4kIt's worthwhile to note that the forum has been bombarded with new threads promoting theism or atheism recently, which is very annoying to those that see such interminable arguments as borderline philosophy at best. — andrewk
Such debates have the potential to be useful and interesting (imho) if the conversation matures beyond challenging this or that position within the God debate to challenging the God debate itself. I agree this rarely happens, and that the process of rarely getting there can be tedious.
On the other hand, if it's true that many or most posters on philosophy forums are young men, (is that true?) then it's not reasonable to expect someone who is 22 to immediately leapfrog over the repetitive patterns which have obsessed humanity for centuries. -
Jake
1.4kIt just means that I'm now more wary of what you moderators might do to a discussion of mine. — S
When I first arrived here I put a great deal of thought, time and energy in a thread which engaged many readers, only to see that thread entirely vanish without warning, explanation of apology. I took a break, got over it, and returned.
The thing is...
1) Forums without moderators inevitably become pointless trash piles in the pell mell rush to the lowest common denominator. Yea, philosophy forums too. Yea, philosophy forums hosted by leading philosophy print magazines too.
2) Moderators are human beings working for free, so perfection is not to be expected.
3) Sucking up to the mods may be the most effective method of protecting your threads, which is why I personally feel the mods here on this forum are doing the most excellent job I've ever seen, and they have very handsome haircuts too. :smile: -
S
11.7kThe thing is...
1) Forums without moderators inevitably become pointless trash piles in the pell mell rush to the lowest common denominator. Yea, philosophy forums too. Yea, philosophy forums hosted by leading philosophy print magazines too.
2) Moderators are human beings working for free, so perfection is not to be expected.
3) Sucking up to the mods may be the most effective method of protecting your threads, which is why I personally feel the mods here on this forum are doing the most excellent job I've ever seen, and they have very handsome haircuts too. :smile: — Jake
As someone who has been a member of this forum, as well as the old forum we inhabited, for many years, and as someone who was a moderator here for a couple of years, I feel that I've got a pretty good grasp of these things, and don't need them pointed out to me.
Yes, obviously there's a reason why I'm here instead of an unmoderated hell hole. Yes, obviously moderators are imperfect humans, and they're working for free here. I of all people should know that, and I do. (Did you know that they felt it necessary to add a clause in the guidelines about moderator conduct because I caused such a ruckus? :snicker: ). And yes, sucking up to the mods might help, but it's not really my style, which is more bulldozer than buttering up. :strong: -
Jake
1.4kAs someone who has been a member of this forum, as well as the old forum we inhabited, for many years, and as someone who was a moderator here for a couple of years, I feel that I've got a pretty good grasp of these things, and don't need them pointed out to me. — S
I bet I've been doing this daily since around the time you were born. So there. :smile: -
yazata
41I don't like combining threads because doing so damages the resulting mega-thread's continuity and flow.
It makes the board more work for its readers. I find myself looking for shorter threads to post to, in part because I'm not motivated to read all the posts in the longer threads.
Another thing: One problem (on every board, not just this one) with many of the longer threads (hundreds of posts) is that they are often generated and dominated by a small number of people who appear to be having an ego-contest. So everything ends up revolving around the agenda that these people set,
Starting a new thread on a closely related topic makes it easier for different ideas to be expressed without participants feeling that they are just spitting into the wind.
Rolling threads together threatens these advantages. -
Streetlight
9.1kBaden's being modest. The long term plan is to have the forum become one giant super thread where we don't even have opening posts any more. For efficiency. -
Michael
15.6kTwo big discussions. The second is the shout box that we hide in the corner just to be spiteful. -
Jake
1.4kOne problem (on every board, not just this one) with many of the longer threads (hundreds of posts) is that they are often generated and dominated by a small number of people who appear to be having an ego-contest. So everything ends up revolving around the agenda that these people set, — yazata
Good point, that's true.
It would be interesting to have a forum feature that limited members to posting only say, once a week, in selected threads. And perhaps limited the number of words one could type too. So if we wanted to impress our friends with our awesome sageness etc, we'd have to cut the crap and get right to it.
Before the Internet went public I used to feed my typoholic addiction by submitting letters to the local paper. The paper had a 300 word limit for letters, because the space available was limited. At first I rebelled at any rule which limited my ability to type. :smile: But over time I came to see the 300 word limit was forcing me to slow down and really focus on finding the heart of what I wanted to say.
Also, the letters were edited. Although this didn't always work out to my satisfaction, sometimes the editors performed miracles upon my words, performing laser surgery to carefully remove my sarcasm and other such emotional garbage, leaving my points intact, thus making me look a much better writer than I actually am.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum