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 — Baden

:sweat: Well deserved! But seriously though, thanks for your responses in this thread and gratitude to the moderators for all that they do to keep it grooving here. Thanks for being the parents in this fun philosophical playground. Umm, that reminds me... Posty has been eating stuff out of the sandbox again, Agu is making faces at the girls, and BC called me a big fat poopy head... not that I’m tattling or anything. :monkey:

If you wish the issues on the playground and the immanent risk to Posty's health to be addressed in the context of the parental analogy, you would be best advised to first ask yourself:

Who's yo daddy now!

The unsavory word 'bitch' is usually applied to the end of the question, but I am rather sensitive to slurs, so I shall leave it confined to the semi-colon.

M

:up: I was thinking before of a simple thread that dealt with grammar, style, formatting questions and answers. Starting such a thread would not require a software update or such. True, it not the forum’s main purpose. It could just be another thread in the Lounge. Personally, I’m still not sure about certain grammatical rules, despite google searches. In this proposed thread, quotations from posts could be examined for how to possibly improve the presentation. The quotes need not be linked to their author, to avoid any embarrassment. Examples of excellent style (as opposed to the content) could also be cited.

We all make mistakes (thanks heavens for spell check and optional auto-complete), and some of my posts could even be used as examples of what not to do, especially concerning run-on sentences and getting over-enthusiastic with parentheses (which might be very helpful, even educational; and by the way, does the punctuation mark go on the inside or outside of the parentheses?)?
:wink:

I propose a multi-layer approach, much like an onion. As you might be aware, the Georgia town of Vidalia grows a particularly sweet onion due to the soil content that is coincidentally called a Vidalia onion. Even my father, rest his soul, enjoyed the Vidalia onion, despite his sensitive digestive constitution that otherwise limited his onion intake (garlic as well, and, did you know, they are of the same family. Botanical facts can be such fun!).

And so the multi-layer approach I propose is that the first post one posts will be almost incomprehensible, filled with typographical errors, grammatical stupidities, and maybe even meandering diversions. Did you know that the word "divert" is from the same root as "Baden," meaning "to have sex with your mother on the toilet while your little brother is taking a bubble bath and using the bubbles to make a beard while he cries out 'Ho ho ho, I'm Santa Claus.'" That word is super specific and gets little use these days. It's a term of art.

Alright, so the first suck ass post will be a Level I post and then with each passing day the subsequent posts will be improved, and just like a little leaguer who's one day called up to the pros ("Hey kid, pack your bags, you've been called up to the big show"), one day the post that began as an early first trimester and still abortable post (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade) can now be on the Main Board for all to debate.

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. — Baden

Actually my insanity looks more like the above than an angry tirade. That's how my world will end, not with a bang, but with a sort of naked spinning babbling episode in the town square.

That's how my world will end, not with a bang, but with a sort of naked spinning babbling episode in the town square. — Hanover

Oooh, sounds intriguing! Mind if I come with? :yum:


:smile: And thanks for your other contributions, as well as your perseverance... hang in there. :up:

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. — VagabondSpectre

All publications everywhere are limited by the abilities, interests and experience of the editors. On net forums this is particularly true, given that the qualifications for a forum mod are basically only that one be pals with the current mods, and be willing to do a bunch of thankless work for free. So it's routine for 20 year olds who can't drink yet to be making decisions about the writings of people three times their age.

Therefore it is not unfair to ask, what are the credentials of the moderator? — Marcus de Brun

It's a fair question, but the answer is, someone willing to do the work for free. Point being, net forums are a "worth what we paid for it" experience, and we have to be realistic about what is possible.

Posty has been eating stuff out of the sandbox again — 0 thru 9

If you wish the issues on the playground and the immanent risk to Posty's health to be addressed in the context of the parental analogy, you would be best advised to first ask yourself:

Who's yo daddy now! — Marcus de Brun

I have no clue what's going on here. :lol:

I don't know what your specific suggestion is here, but we moderate on the basis of the guidelines and there's also the check and balance of the mod forum.



At least this post is better than some of the crap you've been writing in the Shoutbox lately. Keep up the good work. :strong: :100:

Ah Posty... have you been on Malibu Beach, working on the tan?

Much has been going on (and going off) the forum in your absence... you might have to do a little reading of the foregoing, to join in the fun, much of which is contained in the thread "bannings" and the recently 'closed' threads.

M

Ah Posty... have you been on Malibu Beach, working on the tan? — Marcus de Brun

Oh, nothing much, been preoccupied with the Tractatus thread. Been doing some deep thinking on myself also.

I have no clue what's going on here. :lol: — Posty McPostface

I don’t know either, but that’s never stopped me before. I think I was attempting some joke or extended metaphor about us being like unruly kids sometimes. You want half of my PB&J sandwich? Hope you’re not allergic to nuts... though if you were you probably wouldn’t even be here. :grin:

I don't know what your specific suggestion is here, but we moderate on the basis of the guidelines and there's also the check and balance of the mod forum. — Baden

I don't wish to open an old sore however my post in respect of 'The naked truth of Trump' was closed/shifted/deleted by Streetlight in respect of his own (arguably Trumpist) opinion as to its content. He has made that clear. Quotations available.

There are several problems with the Trump debate being confined to the single topic 'Donald Trump'.

In the first place the thread is some 1.2k long and therefore anyone wishing to explore another aspect of the issue is 'compelled' to be cognizant of 1.2k of previous posts, this is impossible. And nowhere on the forum does the precedent exist that for example all Shopenhauer posts should be deleted and shftied to a single Shopenhauer discussion. There is neither a guideline nor a precedent for this. It is just 'intellectual thuggery' pure and simple. (quotations available)

Secondly the notion that there is only one place to talk about the Trump issue (and arguably one kind of Trump discussion) is not only ludicrous, but is contradicted by the presence of another Trump post "what will muller find". Therefore the notion that my Trump discussion was moved in respect of some guideline is at best unreasonable.

The suggestion that one of the biggest 'philosophical' issues of this century (Trump-ism) should be corralled into one thread as a consequence of a guideline is neither reasonable nor logical nor true. The current Donald Trump discussion confines the Trump issue to a particular and very limited philosophical horizon, hence my attempt to start a new discussion.

My discussion was transferred because Streetlight did not like its contents, and interestingly his actions confirm the content of the original post, in that there is a bit of Trump in almost everyone.


As for 'suggestions'

I get the impressions that suggestions, are like resistance to the Borg.

'Futile'


M

There's not only one place to talk about Trump. I did already tell you that. Anyone including you can start a new Trump discussion if they want. What matters is the quality of the OP not the topic. If it's something like you put up asking people to write what they love about Trump and it's going to attract duplicate posts with the other discussion, it will probably be merged. If it's something more specific or more philosophical it's more likely to be left separate.

In the discussion I make the point that Trump exemplifies some of the worst aspects of the human psyche, via his intellectual primitivism. I stated in the discussion OP that I 'like' Trump because he exposes the truth of the myth of our collective intellectual evolution.

Ie the darker side of Trump, the consequence of his existence and occupation of the Presidency.... as opposed to the simple stone throwing at the consequence of his 'acts', (the ongoing 'theme' of the existing discussion)

These are the points being addressed by the 'new' discussion. There is also the question \as to whether Trump's racism sexism and anti immigrant stance etc, reflect the private views of many anti-trumpists, who ostensibly like to 'have a go' at the relatively easy target of his acts, as opposed to the primitive and generally animalistic nature of the man's thought.

This is a different subject than that which is under discussion/siege on the current thread. Streetlight closed the thread because he did not like it, or felt threatened by it. Either way the reaction is pretty much the same as Trump and his wall.

M

Well, wouldn't a more constructive approach be to try to rewrite the OP to make it more obviously philosophical? My impression was that you wrote what you loved about Trump which is the point as you outlined above. But you didn't seem to be asking for that to be discussed in the ensuing discussion but instead simply asking other posters to write what they loved about Trump as you did. That's where I thought the major weakness in the OP was. Maybe there's some misunderstanding about your intention but there's no reason for to believe StreetlightX was afraid of your idea.

Well, wouldn't a more constructive approach be to try to rewrite the OP to make it more obviously philosophical? — Baden

Sure.

If you would kindly return the discussion I would be glad to comply and render the OP more 'obviously philosophical'.

:)

M

I think Hanover quoted the OP. So, can you use that as a basis, rewrite it and run it by me first by PM please.

(Edit: Actually it was Benkei.)

Great

I will open a new discussion re same.

I don't wish to trouble you with the hassle of supervising my ideas.

If the moderators disapprove of the content and take it down again... I am studious enough to get the proverbial message.

M

Up to you. Anyone can start a discussion at any time. If you want a significantly different result though I only suggest you make it significantly different.

Do you have numbers you could share? I've always assumed post deletion and thread deletion were pretty rare, a tiny fraction of the posts submitted and threads created.

It's curious that Plush offers a member reputation system (which I understand there was a decision not to use) but no ability to upvote and downvote threads, which could allow moderators to police policy instead of quality.

How many deletions are for low quality rather than forbidden content? Do we also get a lot of spam?

I guess I'm just wondering if we're really under siege in our little corner of the internet. I remember Usenet becoming, well, unusable, and the internet's response was tools that allowed communities to self-police a bit. Here we're forced to rely on (so far as we know) human moderators. I very much agree with what @TheWillowOfDarkness posted, but I still think allowing posters a way to freely self-sort could be helpful, and it looks like the only tool we have that might reduce the workload of the moderators, whatever that is.

:smile: And thanks for your other contributions, as well as your perseverance... hang in there. :up: — 0 thru 9

:vomit:

:vomit: — Sapientia

Eat a bad mouse, O Esteemed Owl? Or perhaps you grew so tired of Eeyore’s complaining that you scarfed him down? Need some Pepto Dismal? :blush:

Sorry, don't have specific numbers for you. On the general point, we're not under siege but there's enough work to keep us ticking over. I probably delete a couple of OPs a week and then there's PMs and dealing with feedback and discussions in the mod forum, and so on. Definitely not under siege but we can't afford to be too complacent either. Seems to be less spam though since we got the filter up and running.