Teaching them a lesson. (Y)

It was provocative, impolite, and unnecessary. — T Clark

Preposterous!

My first ever essay in politics a long time ago was a D- covered in red ink aggressively scribbled by my lecturer. I got A's and B's ever since. — TimeLine

My only ever essay for the politics dept. title, "What is Democracy?" was written overnight on speed with no references or reading of set books, consisting entirely of platitudes and jingoisms. It's also the only essay I ever got an A for. I present this curious fact as evidence that my prejudices are authoritative.

The old site had automated notifications that identified the mod, the action, and a generic reason. It would be a real pain to have to do that by hand every time one deleted an inappropriate comment on the off chance that someone wants to argue the case. One of many benefits of Paul's software.

Preposterous! — Sapientia

You're right, I left that out....provocative, impolite, unnecessary, and preposterous.

The truth is that I was just being frank, and the way that I chose to do so was a stylistic irrelevance. — Sapientia
Function over form. Here's Martin Luther King's speech in a frank way: racism should end.

Not very inspiring. Form is as important as content in communication.

I was a bit disappointed by how streetlightx, Baden and Thorongil were communicating with each other in the gun control thread and I hold moderators to a higher standard than posters. That was tone too. As a former moderator though I recognise how hard it is to manage tone towards someone you deeply disagree with and believe actually leads to suffering in the world. — Benkei

Amen.

I've often thought that the public discussion regarding problem posts and posters diverts us from our mission as a philosophy forum. It's of course really entertaining to see people going at each other's throats, and we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves transparent and open minded, but I really do think customer complaints ought not be aired publically. It turns this place into a soap opera.

What I'd expect if I thought my food too cold is a reasonable response ("I'm sorry sir, sushi is supposed to be raw," or "I'm sorry your food took 3 hours, have a free cannoli on the house."), not opening it up to debate and discussion to the other patrons about what proper customer service looks like.

I'm not opposed to soliciting feedback of course, and think a "suggestion box" would serve a purpose, but the public debate about post validity presents an assumption of democratic rule, which will only lead to frustration when the voters realize it simply isn't.

Amen, brother. Sometimes even we saints find ourselves in a situation where frankness is incompatible with moderation. Bite tongue, deep breath, count to ten, or possibly more. — unenlightened

Fine, next time I will count to ten and then be provocative, impolite, and unnecessary.

But, in all seriousness, I'm listening and taking on board. (Otherwise what hope will I have of reaching sainthood?).

I've often thought that the public discussion regarding problem posts and posters diverts us from our mission as a philosophy forum. It's of course really entertaining to see people going at each other's throats, and we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves transparent and open minded, but I really do think customer complaints ought not be aired publically. It turns this place into a soap opera.

What I'd expect if I thought my food too cold is a reasonable response ("I'm sorry sir, sushi is supposed to be raw," or "I'm sorry your food took 3 hours, have a free cannoli on the house."), not opening it up to debate and discussion to the other patrons about what proper customer service looks like.

I'm not opposed to soliciting feedback of course, and think a "suggestion box" would serve a purpose, but the public debate about post validity presents an assumption of democratic rule, which will only lead to frustration when the voters realize it simply isn't. — Hanover

You're doing it wrong. Just pick a few replies at random, then tell them that you're listening to what they have to say and promise to take it on board.

I'm listening — Sapientia

Thank you for listening.

Thank you for listening. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You're welcome.

(See, @Hanover? Works like a charm. ;) )

One of many benefits of Paul's software. — unenlightened

That is correct. But it did come with some disadvantages, Paul's software that is (think here mainly of security).

This talk of Paul's software is euphemistic, right? Does the thought of Paul's software cause your floopy disk to overload?

I don't get your meaning. I've edited my previous post a little.

I don't get your meaning. I've edited my previous post a little. — Agustino

Never mind. Probably best left unexplained. My motherboard would be appalled.

To date, 16% say too strict and 16% say not strict enough. If these numbers cancel each other out that means moderation is 100% just about right.

(y)

To date, 16% say too strict and 16% say not strict enough. If these numbers cancel each other out that means moderation is 100% just about right. — praxis

Not so. People who think it is too strict tend to get banned, and people who think it is too lax tend to get bored. Natural selection ensures that most people are happy whatever the regime. In the old place we had an unmoderated section, where people who were happiest with no moderation could be happy. I'm thinking of setting up a special forum where everyone is banned, for the really exclusive among us.

Well, there's 31 votes. 23% of those votes are from moderators >:O

I wouldn't want to post on any philosophy forum that wouldn't ban me. — Groucho Marx, I think

My only ever essay for the politics dept. title, "What is Democracy?" was written overnight on speed with no references or reading of set books, consisting entirely of platitudes and jingoisms. It's also the only essay I ever got an A for. I present this curious fact as evidence that my prejudices are authoritative. — unenlightened

This is genius :B

It turns this place into a soap opera. — Hanover

The Socrates & Plato Show wasn't a soap opera?

I like the drawing.

I put "too strict" but I would have put "inconsistent" if that were an option. Emptyheady was banned on bogus charges. TGW was banned on far too trivial charges. I've seen way too many innocuous, sarcastic posts deleted, and yet most of the mods do nothing but post bitter sarcasm. I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck.

At least that ended in a proper death.

I put "too strict" but I would have put "inconsistent" if that were an option. Emptyheady was banned on bogus charges. TGW was banned on far too trivial charges. I've seen way too many innocuous, sarcastic posts deleted, and yet most of the mods do nothing but post bitter sarcasm. I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck. — Thorongil

This I agree with. The Mods most certainly have biases and act based upon them. It's inevitable.

I'm not around TPF much, but based upon my limited experience here I'd say the moderators have done an outstanding job overall.

I specifically haven't noticed (pace Thorongil) the biases of those in charge of this forum having much of an impact on their moderating decisions, whether it be deleting posts and/or banning members. Thanatos Sand, for example, was banned despite holding many views that I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of the mods found extremely congenial to their own.

On the flip side, Agustino has been a respected member here for quite some time while pushing certain positions that I'm almost positive most of the moderators find abhorrent.

But again, Thorongil frequents this place much more than I do, and I respect his judgement, so I'll assume I've missed some relevant happenings on this front. I am bummed that TGW has apparently been banned again (like the old PF). I don't get it with him since I've always found him to be fairly non-confrontational and his contributions to be valuable.

I am bummed that TGW has apparently been banned again (like the old PF). I don't get it with him since I've always found him to be fairly non-confrontational and his contributions to be valuable. — Erik

This time I think he was banned because he changed his writing style--neglecting capitals at the beginning of sentences and so on--and point blank refused to change it back. It wouldn't have been fair to make an exception just because he was an exceptionally good contributor.

Thanatos Sand, for example, was banned despite holding many views that I'm pretty sure most (if not all) of the mods found extremely congenial to their own. — Erik

Ironically, Thanatos was banned after a complaint about him by a member who afterwards left in protest at our moderation. Go figure. TGW was banned for refusing moderation (see above). He is a loss, but the fact that accepting to abide by the site guidelines is a prerequisite for being a member here should be a no-brainer. Also, some of our most vociferous complainants are among our least-moderated members. There may be legitimate grievances, of course, but sometimes there is a lack of nuance in complaints that makes them difficult to address.

I've often thought that the public discussion regarding problem posts and posters diverts us from our mission as a philosophy forum. It's of course really entertaining to see people going at each other's throats, and we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves transparent and open minded, but I really do think customer complaints ought not be aired publically. It turns this place into a soap opera.

What I'd expect if I thought my food too cold is a reasonable response ("I'm sorry sir, sushi is supposed to be raw," or "I'm sorry your food took 3 hours, have a free cannoli on the house."), not opening it up to debate and discussion to the other patrons about what proper customer service looks like.

I'm not opposed to soliciting feedback of course, and think a "suggestion box" would serve a purpose, but the public debate about post validity presents an assumption of democratic rule, which will only lead to frustration when the voters realize it simply isn't. — Hanover

Some people openly admit to totalitarianism :B