To exclude or demean others is to abandon reasoned inquiry for dogma or prejudice. You are lucky you are still here.

partly for low quality, and partly for obnoxiousness, — Jamal

:up: Yes please, thank you. If you're going to be obnoxious, you gotta have some class.

Generally speaking—from the limited exposure I have to his content—I never found anything objectionable. A bit more casual (as opposed to formal) than most, I suppose. Seemed to know all the lingo, at least. More so than myself.

Still, what people need to remember is at the end of the day, this is somebody else's house. He can make the rules, fair or not, and he can enforce them, selectively or not. If you get too comfortable you forget the reality of the place you willingly choose to frequent, that's hardly anybody's fault but one's own.

I think it's $50 a month to get a PlushForums subscription and maybe under an hour of work total to get an identical setup to this forum of your own going. No one can stop you from doing so if you so desire. Not me, not Jamal, nor any other site or staff member.

At the risk of adding to what I suspect might simply be a bad day or week, I feel a question at least on a few member's minds might be: Are you just having a bad day, @Jamal? Or has this been brewing for some time? :chin:

To some of us, this is much more than a website to waste time or "shoot the shit" on. More than a casual hobby or past time but an active part of one's life and between some of us almost like a club of distant pen pals (I'm trying to avoid saying "like a family" because that's simply not accurate for the majority of posters). My point is, participation on this site is important to some people more so than you might think. We're all real people with real lives and real feelings. Please remember that @Jamal, and if you ever want someone to talk to, particularly a stranger you won't ever have to meet or talk to ever again (you'd be surprised how almost natural it is to open up to someone like that), private message me anytime. :smile:

To some of us, this is much more than a website to waste time or "shoot the shit" on. More than a casual hobby or past time but an active part of one's life and between some of us almost like a club of distant pen pals (I'm trying to avoid saying "like a family" because that's simply not accurate for the majority of posters). My point is, participation on this site is important to some people more so than you might think. We're all real people with real lives and real feelings. Please remember that Jamal — Outlander

What do you think follows from this? That I should never ban anyone? On the contrary, it is because I want to maintain and improve the community that I have to get rid of members who make the experience of being here worse.

Blah blah blah blah-blah bl-ba-blah blah. — Harry Hindu

I must say that personally I would take no offence at all to that response. It’s probably even fair.

But then I’m guilty of enjoying the knockabout character of the debates here. I happened to stumble on an old thread the other day and remembered how much I miss The Great Whatever and even StreetlightX.

The modding here is relaxed so other things may have weighed heavier. But for my part, I don’t see any great reason for the ban.

If you think Harry was in the same league as The Great Whatever and StreetlightX, I can only assume you didn't interact with him much.

:up:

Jamal provides a great service and can maintain the site precisely how he sees fit. We ought to defend and respect his right to do so, even if it means our own banning.

Yes, Streetlight in particular was a genuine intellect. I always saw Harry as an annoying contrarian.

Personally, I am content to ignore when it seems necessary, and I'm like apo in not being concerned by the "knockabout" character of this site, but I can also see that I may well feel differently if I were the creator and financial sustainer.

I think you do a great job in providing an enjoyable resource Jamal.

I did interact with him a lot. And no he wasn’t in the same league. I’m not contesting your decision, just speaking up for Harry in terms of my experience. And the fair thing to say is that I have had no problem with him myself.

And i echo the others saying you are doing a good job. :up:

I always saw Harry as an annoying contrarian hack. — Janus

Our eyes coincide.

Relax guys; you're in a safe posada. :smile:

If you behave, there will not be any problem.

I met wonderful people here, like @Agent Smith and @karl stone, but it is true that they behaved weirdly, and the result was their banning. It hurt me, but I understood that we should respect the place if we want a harmony amongst us while we are interacting.

The banning tool is complex and often not welcomed, but it is necessary. Even the Principality of Sealand –where only two lads live–, has rules, standards and all. Why should the absence of righteousness be tolerated here?

Yes please, thank you. If you're going to be obnoxious, you gotta have some class. — unenlightened

Yes. I do my best to make my obnoxiousness high-quality.

Relax guys; you're in a safe posada. :smile:

If you behave, there will not be any problem. — javi2541997

Yes, I think that’s the motto of the justice department and ICE here in the United States.

Well you get some points for effort, I suppose. :cool:

ICE — T Clark

Vanilla ICE! Clarky, this is my favourite flavour. :razz:

Stop posturing Leon. — Jamal

I am not posturing. Stop insulting me.

Blah blah blah blah-blah bl-ba-blah blah. — Harry Hindu

A TPF search for "blah blah" yields 608 results.

I never read the guy's posts, but his quality seems to have been consistent for quite a long time.

To exclude or demean others is to abandon reasoned inquiry for dogma or prejudice. You are lucky you are still here. — Jamal

If we are not allowed to question the sexual ethics of Western Europe, then we will not question the sexual ethics of Western Europe. But that sort of a rule should be made explicit. I don't see how those who question the sexual ethics of Western Europe can simply be threatened or banned for "abandoning reason." There are lots of people from other regions of the world on TPF.

Harry could never get past seeing language as nothing but reference, which made his posts somewhat monotonous and off-point. But I pretty much concur with his critique of @apokrisis. :wink:

As I've said elsewhere, were I running this forum there would be far fewer members and more esoteric threads, which would be much less fun. That the forum exists at all is quite astonishing.

It's Jamal's forum. He will do as he sees fit. The most we lesser creatures may do is to be grateful we are permitted the occasional whinge, as in this very thread. And if you don't like it, there's the door.

Harry could never get past seeing language as nothing but reference — Banno

Language is the house of Being, so he don't belong in the house?

his posts somewhat monotonous and off-point. — Banno

I love how you like stirring the pot. :smirk:

Damn, I did not know. The exchanges I've had with him were serious and substantive, but I didn't read all his posts or follow him at all. Good to know.

All in all- and yeah it sounds like I'm being a "teachers pet" - you folks do a fine job moderating here.

No one important.

:gasp:

When you are banned can you still read threads like this?

Yes. (Right click on top site logo -> Open in new private window [you will be not logged in and so can see what non-members see]).

I found Harry difficult to engage with, but for whatever reason he was never outright rude to me. Since I therefore rarely read his posts, I have no opinion about his ban-worthiness.

Banning is a difficult decision -- I believe you mods always give warnings to possible infringers? -- and I'm grateful that you and the other mods are keeping an eye. Thank you.

(I don't see the need for more specific TPF rules. The picture of what's inappropriate is pretty clear.)

Yes. You don't have to be signed in to see it.

Thanks.

As I've said elsewhere, were I running this forum there would be far fewer members and more esoteric threads, which would be much less fun. That the forum exists at all is quite astonishing. — Banno

Perhaps not as astonishing as you finding yourself as always its heliocentric centre. The mass around which it revolves. The reason it runs. :wink:

The modding here is relaxed so other things may have weighed heavier. But for my part, I don’t see any great reason for the ban. — apokrisis

I banned Harry Hindu, partly for low quality, and partly for obnoxiousness.
I want people to know there's no room here for that kind of crap any more. — Jamal

All in all- and yeah it sounds like I'm being a "teachers pet" - you folks do a fine job moderating here. — Manuel

I kinda want to comment on all these things at once...as i think this site is pretty exceptional in terms of achieving what it's designed for: I understand a lot of the purpose of the site is to enable as many people as possible to participate in philosophical discussions. This site achieves it in the fallowing ways:

1. The way that "philosophy" is defined is not at all strict, discussions on politics are allowed, discussions on raw logic puzzles are allowed, discussions on religion are allowed...pretty much everything is allowed. This is super rare for any message board.

2. There's no pressure to understand any particular body of thought as it relates to philosophy. We are all coming from radically different directions in understanding.

3. the rules are so flexible that it allows the moderators to use discretion in cases where people members are consistently being a PITA, and they're clear enough they give you a good idea of what flies and what doesn't.

In philosophy, we should be able to argue with each other: and you absolutely can do that on this forum if you avoid descending into bland insults and you don't post with the intention of winning converts or besting someone in an argument. I've realized on here, the second one will absolutely get you banned, as it puts you in a frame of mind where you want to control the other users. Let the moderators do that. More than once, I had to accept that I had previously made a false assumption about what someone was arguing, and I believe that will save you if you want to stay a member here.

However, that being said, I still think internet discussion itself is kinda doomed to have poor quality overall. It's harder to empathize with the person you're talking to, and it's hard to understand what kind of response your post is going to get. It's like the whole thing is designed for flaming. I'm personally finding on here that I'm regularly talking past people, and this isn't entirely their fault...and it can't be entirely my fault either (especially if it isn't their fault...)

As for Harry Hindu, it did seem like he really needed to "win arguments", and i think this was the reason he went overboard and ended up getting on the bad side of the moderators. Sometimes I couldn't help but to feel very angry at him, so i'm not particularly mad about the decision. I personally did not try to push him into getting banned (probably the most effective way to do that is send the Mod a message, which i did not do), even though in our final toxic exchange, i did point out that he was trolling and insulting me directly to him. It really sucks arguing with someone who lavishly praises empiricism, but rarely backs up their posts with any kind of external evidence. I had a much more interesting talk with Philosophim about this subject (of objectivity and empiricism) in the same thread, and clearly Harry wasn't reading any of it or thinking about it.

This site achieves it in the fallowing ways:

1. The way that "philosophy" is defined is not at all strict, discussions on politics are allowed, discussions on raw logic puzzles are allowed, discussions on religion are allowed...pretty much everything is allowed. This is super rare for any message board.

2. There's no pressure to understand any particular body of thought as it relates to philosophy. We are all coming from radically different directions in understanding.

3. the rules are so flexible that it allows the moderators to use discretion in cases where people members are consistently being a PITA, and they're clear enough they give you a good idea of what flies and what doesn't. — ProtagoranSocratist

You left out one— this is the most active philosophy site I’ve ever seen.