Hi. I removed the posts on account of their low quality.

You have no right to do that. You fascist.

Who gave you the power to decide what is and what is not acceptable.

And so what? Low quality. Is everything posted here of such high quality. The arrogance is absolutely mind blowing.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

Show me which rule I have transgressed?
Have I offended anyone. Have I been rude, disrespectful. These are my genuine held beliefs and you have the temerity to delete them?

I didn't see your OP, but the link explains moderation procedures, and @StreetlightX is a moderator. Here's some more info: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op

I will keep placing this Op until you throw me off this forum or you give me a decent explanation why this op is unacceptable and not some link..

I have read your link. You tell me specifically what is not acceptable in my OP. This is unacceptable.

I will keep placing this Op until you throw me off this forum — ovdtogt

I'd advise you to calm down and wait for further explanation from @StreetlightX (such as he feels appropriate to give) or we will have no choice but to ban you.

*Sigh*

Without intending to be facetious, the posts were literal gibberish, a mix of pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy that could lead to only confused discussion. I'd be able to give a fuller engagement if there was an argument - or access to the posts, which I no longer do - but there wasn't one apart from a speculative word salad, and there's not much to say about that other than to point it out.

I'd be able to give a fuller engagement if there was an argument - or access to the posts, which I no longer do — StreetlightX

I think it’s sad that it’s impossible to recover posts that the moderation deletes, something that seems to be gibberish to someone may be quite important to someone else, so there should be the possibility for the poster to at least have access for a while to their posts that were deleted so that they can at least save it for themselves. We can’t judge how important something is to someone without being them.

Also as a suggestion I believe one should have the opportunity to appeal the deletion of posts, for instance in this case his posts seem to have been deleted forever and no one has the ability to judge them anymore. I’m not saying your judgment was wrong, but respectfully it might have been, and now we have no way to find out.

As an admin, I have access to deleted posts and appeal is possible. But he's banned now, so no point digging them up.

The posts can be recovered by other mods, just not me. I'm much too low on the food chain.

Re: appeals, one of the issues is that the forum software just don't provide a good mechanism for it. It's something we'd like, but it's technically hard to implement.

If a category on the left-side menu called 'the trashcan' or some such was introduced, we would be able to peruse offending OPs and make our own minds up.

If a category on the left-side menu called 'the trashcan' or some such was introduced, we would be able to peruse offending OPs and make our own minds up. — Devans99

We don't want posts that are worthy of deletion showing on the site. That's why we delete them.

We had something similar to that in an older incarnation of the forum. It - the trash can - was a pretty horrible place filled with the most asinine content you can imagine. I thought it was an ugly sore on the forum, and I wouldn't be keen to introduce it here. But that's just my opinion. The other mods and admins may feel differently (edit: not michael apparently!).

The trash can was the Auschwitz of forum posts. Gnashing of teeth, a sea of burning sulphur. Souls living in eternal suffering. Those who got out of there alive, bore a frighteningly dark, tremendous scar on their souls for the rest of their lives.

We don't want posts that are worthy of deletion showing on the site. That's why we delete them. — Michael

I guess it's your call, Michael.

This is common to forums, which over time develop a collective attitude. It's a form of censorship which empowers people to remove whatever they don't understand,or don't want to accept.
In most cases, the questionable content dies a natural death, via lack of interest or disproof on the basis of established evidence. In a democracy, isn't everyone allowed a voice?

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we we don't believe in it at all.

--- Noam Chomsky

From the guidelines:

"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

I guess it's your call, Michael. — god must be atheist

Yes. Even the admins obey my demands.

In a democracy, isn't everyone allowed a voice? — sandman

This isn't a democratic institution.

As a regular user I am glad the mods took action. I was considering reporting his stuff.

Yes. Even the admins obey my demands. — Michael

I was simply doing a pun on the sound of "your call" as opposed to "my call" as in "Michael". I've been savouring to crack that pun for a long time. Like five days or so. Thanks for the opportunity.

It wasn't the best context to crack it at, and I'm sure in sounded language it can be made to work more smoothly and more overtly.

I was simply doing a pun on the sound of "your call" as opposed to "my call" as in "Michael". — god must be atheist

Oh. Maybe it's an accent thing. I pronounce "my call" like "my cool" and "Michael" like "my cull".

As a regular user I am glad the mods took action. I was considering reporting his stuff. — bert1

I was hesitant whether to leave a snide remark, with cutting sarcasm, or do nothing.

I think I did both.

The guy was not a total waste, he had valid things to say, but not always. His one-sentence replies were sensible, but his longer posts were complete brain salads. He posts, if I am any judge of style and content, at philosophynow with the id of "7johndoe" spelled backwards. I can't be bothered to trace the letters to spell them backwards.

There, on philosophynow, he goes on rampage upon rampage of posting his theories that do not make sense. If it's the same guy. He had also, if this is the same guy, left a very long post in the Lounge section at philosophynow, a very long time ago, an autobiographical note. Very, very sad, his life story is. Not just pitiable; you had to cry when you read it. It looked honest and candid, not made up at all.

I hope he stays. Best way to react to moderation is to treat it as valuable information about the values of the forum and adjust accordingly. He can still offer his theories if done in a more engaging way that people might want to respond to.

"The above guidelines are in place to help us maintain a high standard of discussion and debate, and they will be enforced. If you feel from the get-go that their very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you." — Baden

Baden, I appreciate that rules are made to be broken. But there are some other users who have a proven track record of making even less sense than the user who has just been banned.

I also appreciate that the user banned was banned because he committed other offences. But I'd like to see the "no-nonsense" rule to have stronger measures of enforcement than up to now.

I would also like to see clarification on the use of humour.