I'm not a member of staff.

Staff: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/members/staff

Owner: https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/1/jamalrob

The complaint here is that he didn't take too kindly to my objection to his spamming.

List of staff, including who is online, the little face in the top right corner of our poster icons indicates that we are staff. @jamalrob is the owner and has been summoned to the thread.

If your issue concerns treatment from other members, including mods, you are free to personal message any mod and we can try and deal with whatever interpersonal problem that there is.

↪Frank Apisa


List of staff, including who is online, the little face in the top right corner of our poster icons indicates that we are staff. jamalrob is the owner and has been summoned to the thread.

If your issue concerns treatment from other members, including mods, you are free to personal message any mod and we can try and deal with whatever interpersonal problem that there is. — fdrake

Thank you, Drake.

No need to make a big thing of this. The individual "S" has on two occasions accused me of spamming the forum.

I would not do that under any circumstances.

In one instance, S made a threat about banning.

Since I did not know who are the chiefs and who are the Indians, I got hot. Very hot, in fact, Apologized once...and then got hit with another "spamming" comment.

I thought it might be the owner or a moderator...and I was willing to leave the forum if unwelcome.

I'll calm down now...and just ignore S.

I will do my best to be a decent contributor.

I'll calm down now...and just ignore S. — Frank Apisa

If you and someone don't get along on here it's usually best to ignore them.

I will do my best to be a decent contributor. — Frank Apisa

Thanks.

I had a look at the discussion between you and @S, just looks like it got heated. There were parts of your posts of questionable relevance to the discussion topics, which S reacted to with the spam accusation. If I've read it right with my skim read anyway.

Doesn't seem like much of a scene is required, it's not like you merc'd each other in a rap beef fam.

I would not do that under any circumstances. — Frank Apisa

What he means is that he wouldn't do so with the realisation that it is spamming.

In one instance, S made a threat about banning. — Frank Apisa

I explained that it wasn't a threat. That's just his misinterpretation. It was a warning, as in an advisement of precaution. It wouldn't make sense for me to threaten him with something not within my power, and knowingly so.

Since I did not know who are the chiefs and who are the Indians, I got hot. Very hot, in fact, Apologized once...and then got hit with another "spamming" comment. — Frank Apisa

Yes, he got another comment about spamming because he repeated the spam, and I am not exactly the type to be silenced if I object to something.

I thought it might be the owner or a moderator...and I was willing to leave the forum if unwelcome. — Frank Apisa

Wait. Am I being referred to as an "it"? :lol:

There were parts of your posts of questionable relevance to the discussion topics, which S reacted to with the spam accusation. — fdrake

I know I'm far from perfect, but I don't spam like that. Those posts are very much a pattern, and they are a problem in my assessment. I don't think that I'm alone in making that assessment.

Really, he should be thanking me for pointing out this problem, so that he has an opportunity to do something about it. But I understand that it's very hard to be thankful under the circumstances.

Frank: Moderators, whatever icon they use, have a little circle-image in the upper left hand corner of their square image -- it's the Roman bathhouse goddess Hygenia. She protects bathers from communicable diseases. Back in the day it was an unfortunately common occurrence, and occurs in some bathhouses today, as well. So, should you frolic in a bathhouse, be sure to offer something to Hygenia.

Moderators can not infect you with diseases on line. In person might be another story.

Hygenia has not been approved by the FDA.

Really, he should be thanking me for pointing out this problem, so that he has an opportunity to do something about it. But I understand that it's very hard to be thankful under the circumstances. — S

:rofl:

Yes, humans are known for taking criticism well and admitting to fault. Especially on the internet.

Yes, it's odd. Especially since I'm known for my delicate handling of such situations. Nothing says delicate like, "Stop spamming!".

Yes, a fine example of tact and diplomacy.

What would be considered spamming? Is it the strictest, bot style spamming that is not acceptable, or would just repeating the same argument with a slightly different spin ad naeseum get moderator attention?
Im new to the Forum and have been put off by certain members who espouse at length the same pet theory or philosophy over and over either in their own new threads (pretending its a different topic) or by trying to muscle its relevancy in any given topic.
I would like to know if it could be reported so it is addressed.

The following segment of the guidelines seems of relevance:

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Advertisers, spammers: Instant deletion of post followed by ban.

And anything can be reported through the flagging button (bottom left-hand corner of a comment, then click the one that looks like a flag) or by other means, such as contacting a member of staff.

Not very helpful. To the former, is that not what the discourse is? To convince another person with your compelling reasons or argument? The latter is the catagory I would like to have specified. Sounds just like the bot style spamming is whats indicated.

As S. said.

Personal view of it:

Some cases of spam are really easy to classify, some are just benign but largely inarticulate and irrelevant posts, sometimes it's difficult to see if someone is intentionally spamming and derailing threads or if they're just bad at English or have a particularly fire and brimstone inducing perspective. This applies to Christian evangelists as much as it applied to a (relatively) recent case of an incredibly angry post-colonial critical theory poster.

I don't think we punish people for having strong opinions or approaching philosophy from an entrenched perspective. There have been times where we have banned easy to anger hawkers of pseudoscientific woo, but we also often don't clamp down hard on woo or misinformed posters because, well, the minimum standard of scientific competence should probably be lower here than on physicsforums or stackexchange.

All in all, you're probably not going to get a clearcut definition of spamming or evangelism which sorts posts and posters into the right categories 100% guarantee every time; partly because it's not necessary for staff to effectively curate content, and partly because doing such a thing is an exercise in futility.

If you can give us a perfect definition of spam or evangelism as it is relevant to moderating the board, I'm all ears though.

Alas, I cannot.

Alas, I cannot. — DingoJones

In lieu of there being a perfect definition, I suggest we continue bodging along as we always do.

Indeed, I just wanted to know if what was annoying me was actually something I could report and have addressed.

Report anything you deem report worthy, we make the executive decision (we get an automatic prompt when there's stuff reported we've not made a ruling on).

:up:

The latter is the category I would like to have specified. Sounds just like the bot style spamming is what's indicated. — DingoJones

I agree. If the wording can be improved, I say improve it. But don't look to me for that.

The occurrence of it is definitely a problem. There are at least a few members here who have literally just copy-pasted text or duplicated a previous comment. That's the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. I hope this discussion sends out the message that this sort of thing is not okay.

Ive noticed that too and share the same hope. Or at least that this can be a thread to discuss it in.

This spam is really getting on my nerves:

Here again... is a consequence of neglecting to draw the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Judgment is existentially dependent upon the latter. Being mistaken is not.

Is he trying to brain wash us or what? Stop trying to push your pet theory all of the time. Some of us are getting sick to death of it. I know as a matter of certainty that I am just one of several who feel this way about this content.

Can we add "thought/belief" to the spam filter, please?

Many posts have no substantive content. The post just above this is such a one. I'd like the mods to have authority to delete any post lacking substantive content - maybe they have it already - and exercise it. Deleting all such posts would be a Herculean task. But maybe deleting a few would have a salutary effect. And maybe leave in place a tag, "Post deleted for lack of substance," or something like.

Not to have a chilling effect on humor, or even sometimes expressions of anger or frustration. But every post ought to make some positive contribution, and it happens that sometimes, - imo too often - posts simply do not.

But I could live with that, even if it means some of mine disappear. Small price to pay for upgrading the level of discourse here. No doubt this idea needs more thought, and perhaps some refinement for any practice. But I urge it for consideration.

Many posts have no substantive content. The post just above this is such a one. — tim wood

Are you referring to my comment or what I quoted? If the former, then where is your explanation? If the former, I think that's just a indication of bias against me. It's almost inevitable in any Feedback discussion that I participate in, that someone with a grudge against me - and there are plenty of those - will try to make it about me. My comment is an example of what we've been talking about, followed by a complaint. That's the substance. Your own comment does the same thing: example, followed by complaint.

The theme is, or has become, about spam. Nothing else. The kind of posts which look like they're largely copy-pasted over and again. And also, the kind of posts which go on about the same thing everywhere over and again, like the "thought/belief" thing, and like the "atheists and theists are just guessing" thing.

fdrake
1.9k

I'll calm down now...and just ignore S. — Frank Apisa


If you and someone don't get along on here it's usually best to ignore them.

I will do my best to be a decent contributor. — Frank Apisa


Thanks.

I had a look at the discussion between you and S, just looks like it got heated. There were parts of your posts of questionable relevance to the discussion topics, which S reacted to with the spam accusation. If I've read it right with my skim read anyway.

Doesn't seem like much of a scene is required, it's not like you merc'd each other in a rap beef fam. — fdrake

Thank you, Drake.

All I really wanted to know is whether the "warning" was coming from someone in authority...or just from someone inappropriately shooting of his/her mouth. I now know...and I appreciate the matter being resolved.

The agnostic type position I hold about questions involving the true nature of the REALITY of existence (in particular whether gods are are or are not involved) matters a great deal to me. I think recognition of "I do not know and cannot determine" is essential to reasonable discussion of the issues at hand here. But because the position of "I do not know" is so unpopular with the "it is most likely this/it is most likely that" crowd, it often is seen as a one-trick pony show.

It is not.

I will defend it as strongly as the guessers defend their position...and I will not have it dismissed out-of-hand as "spam"...at least not by someone regulating the forum.

Thanks to everyone else who replied for their comments and help.

You're welcome.

Doesn't seem like much of a scene is required, it's not like you merc'd each other in a rap beef fam. — fdrake

:lol:

Hygenia has not been approved by the FDA. — Bitter Crank

:rofl:

Doesn't seem like much of a scene is required, it's not like you merc'd each other in a rap beef fam. — fdrake

Oi, what u chattin', bruv? Only one of us be gettin' merc'd. An it ain't me, fam.

If your issue concerns treatment from other members, including mods, you are free to personal message any mod and we can try and deal with whatever interpersonal problem that there is — fdrake

But, because our moderators (as we would expect of them) are moderate in their own actions, trolls can get away with a fair amount before significant action must be taken. Annoying though it is, we must just keep trying not to feed the trolls.