Ah.

I just saw he posted a misleadingly edited version of my PM to him in the abortion discussion too. Right, well...

Well, I won't be complaining. No great loss.

Banned Inis for repeatedly reposting a PM I sent him into the Brexit discussion. General mendaciousness and time-wasting also. — Baden

I'm surprised that he was allowed to last so long, given his crystal clear violation of the guideline about evangelists, evidenced in the discussion on Brexit and the discussion on Trump.

He's been banned several times on this forum and the old one. IIRC his previous incarnation here was "tom". I thought then that he'd reached the limits of his imagination in coming up with new sock-puppet names.

It's odd to me, so much effort, so much intelligence - for nothing.

It's odd to me, so much effort, so much intelligence - for nothing. — unenlightened

I fear it's worse than nothing. He could probably trick someone naive enough to fall for his crap. I'm sure there are such people out there. He just picked the wrong crowd.

He just picked the wrong crowd. — S

That's why it's odd. If you're smart enough to go trawling through the statistics to bend them to your propaganda, how come you're too stupid to put them to better use than trying to convince the obviously wrong crowd. It doesn't even make sense on the level of 'Heh, I get taken seriously by philosophers, so the peasants will believe me'.

To me, Ayn Randian philosophy mirrors Nazi philosophy. I think Randians should be banned, too. But, I’m biased, having worked at Senator Ron Johnson’s factory and listened to his evil propaganda.

That's why it's odd. If you're smart enough to go trawling through the statistics to bend them to your propaganda, how come you're too stupid to put them to better use than trying to convince the obviously wrong crowd. It doesn't even make sense on the level of 'Heh, I get taken seriously by philosophers, so the peasants will believe me'. — unenlightened

He must be one of those smart-dumb people! :lol:

Re Inis, I'm not sensing a great deal of weeping and gnashing of teeth at his departure, so I'll give this another hour or so for further comments and then close up.

Banned and mass deleted @Evola for being tom/Inis etc.

Removed @pbxman's membership at his/her request.

Pbxman: "I'm sick and tired to this anglo-centric forums in which only this USA hero UK (its fave PET) view is allowed and it not they censure you! You talk to people from Russia and Iran and they have totally different world view. How Can I remove my account from this crap?"

If he/she is acquainted with Russian or Iranian culture, the notion of censorship should be pretty familiar. I would think this forum would feel comfortingly familiar, if he/she perceives it to be a censorious place.

Thick coat of irony there, alright.

Banned @Coeus for unprovoked hostile PMs suggesting he rejects the idea of being modded and for general low quality.

No Nazis to argue about this week in the Bannings thread. Dang, I feel cheated! :-) Sig Bile!

Banned @Proctor because their posts were getting deleted or constantly caught in the spam filter for good reason.

Banned @räthsel for flaming and ignoring warnings to stop doing so.

That's unfortunate, but it did seem like he/she would probably likely continue to quickly get nasty with people, including you moderators.

Fair. :up:

Hasty.

Letting people think about how to approach the issue for a day or two would’ve been more productive.

Not knowing that you cannot say what you think on forums like this is hardly the fault of a newcomer. There are FAR worse people on this forum saying all kinds of horrible things, yet pointing out stupidity is somehow seen as the most unacceptable sin? Or is it just me?

It is quite clear to see when someone has been antagonized. They announce they won’t respond, and against their better judgement get drawn in by the person/s in question professing doe-eyed innocence.

Step it up a bit, is my suggestion. How about sending a PM and issuing a temporary ban (a cool off period?) I that is what the “ban” is then ignore the above. If it isn’t have ponder maybe?

Good day folks :)

Not knowing that you cannot say what you think on forums like this is hardly the fault of a newcomer. — I like sushi

This site is aimed at adults not children. If someone is ignorant enough to come on a modded forum and think it's OK to call other posters and mods 'fucking retards' etc, they will be given the courtesy of a warning. Beyond that, we won't be offering them the full spa treatment in the hopes that they'll cool down, but simply showing them the door.

Besides, I don't think the circumstances here were particularly mitigating. If they were, a bit more leeway might have been justified. But even then, we don't do temporary bans.

I picture three sections of a forum.

1) At the lowest level are those banned because they just don't seem worth investing time in. We can debate particular cases, but this seems sound as a general principle.

2) At the middle level is the forum as it currently exists.

3) At the highest level there could be an invitation only section of the forum which serves as a tangible example of what kind of quality content the mods are aiming for.

There's more to being an editor than just showing the riff raff the door. Ideally there should also be an ongoing effort to recruit the kind of members the mods would like to have more of.

A challenge here is that many quality commentators have long ago given up on forums, and invitations won't be successful unless they can be provided a space where conversations are on their level.

Imho, there's a great opportunity for any mod team that understands and implements this invitation concept because few of their competitors will bother.

None of the above is particularly relevant to very many forums, but on a philosophy forum, or any forum with intellectual pretensions, the content is either going to be getting better and better, or it's going to be getting worse and worse.

If you can't or won't provide your better commentators a space where they can do their thing together what happens is that they will wander off one by one to be replaced by mediocre commentators, a process which tends to feed on itself and accelerate over time.

the content is either going to be getting better and better, or it's going to be getting worse and worse. — Jake

No, it doesn't polarize like that. With consistent standards enforced, the content remains of a consistent standard.

If you can't or won't provide your better commentators a space where they can do their thing together what happens is that they will wander off one by one to be replaced by mediocre commentators, a process which tends to feed on itself and accelerate over time. — Jake

This is another thing that hasn't and doesn't happen. Again, consistent enforcement of standards makes the place consistently attractive to those who appreciate those standards.

I picture three sections of a forum.

1) At the lowest level are those banned because they just don't seem worth investing time in. We can debate particular cases, but this seems sound as a general principle.

2) At the middle level is the forum as it currently exists.

3) At the highest level there could be an invitation only section of the forum which serves as a tangible example of what kind of quality content the mods are aiming for. — Jake

This, even if possible, would result in justified accusations of elitism, impossible-to-refute accusations of favouritism, and general dissatisfaction and strife.

No, it doesn't polarize like that. With consistent standards enforced, the content remains of a consistent standard. — Baden

Consistently mediocre. To my knowledge there are few to no professional philosophers here. Many of threads are clogged to overflowing with never ending emotion fueled ego battles between folks barely old enough to vote etc.

To be fair, I would judge this forum to be better than most philosophy forums, which is why I am here. But that is a quite low standard.

This, even if possible, would result in justified accusations of elitism, impossible-to-refute accusations of favouritism, and general dissatisfaction and strife. — Baden

Elitism is what editing is about, which you would know if you were an actual editor and not just a mod working for free.

Do the editors of the New York Times worry about those who whine their submission was declined? No, they don't. Instead they focus on finding ever better sources of ever better content.

I'm agreeable that you should ignore all the above, because I knew before posting that you would, and I'm at peace with that. But just a reminder, there is no law of nature requiring you to settle for what you've currently got.

Elitism is what editing is about, which you would know if you were an actual editor and not just a mod working for free. — Jake

I am an actual editor. It's really funny how people keep doing this :D. But no, I don't work for the New York Times.

Anyway, we're off-topic. As usual, I'll leave this open for another little while for any comments on @räthsel's banning and then close it again.

3) At the highest level there could be an invitation only section of the forum which serves as a tangible example of what kind of quality content the mods are aiming for. — Jake

That would do more harm than good. Unconscious bias would influence the selection of "elites". And as Baden said, the result would be general dissatisfaction and strife.

between folks barely old enough to vote etc. — Jake

Your ageism is showing again. :down: