More elitism is totally what this world needs.

The good cop / bad cop example comes to mind.

BAD COP: To me, it's indisputable that any serious forum needs a team of "garbage men" who will stomp on the spam roaches, sweep blatant bozos out the door, and haul the low quality content off to the dump. It's great that we have members who are willing to perform this essential service, and for free, because without such a contribution the forum would soon become uninhabitable for intelligent life. I've seen philosophy forums where anything goes, and they rather closely resemble the inside of a septic tank.

GOOD COP: I think it would help build the credibility of the mods and the quality of the forum by balancing the necessary bad cop operations with more good cop contributions. The first post of the thread could be a place to start.

Other operations might be considered as time permits.

You know, instead of just identifying losers and giving them the boot (often with generous helpings of snotty condescension in the banning thread) also identify posters who are doing what you want more of, and look for ways large and small to reward them. Think BF Skinner here, if you know his work.

One mod might be assigned the job of recruiting new quality members. Scan the blogosphere, find authors who meet your standard, build a relationship, and invite them in to the forum.

Just illustrating a general concept here, there are surely many ways the general concept could be put in to practice, which the mods can think of themselves.

More elitism is totally what this world needs — Benkei

It's truly remarkable how utterly predictable human beings can be. If you'd like to chant "Freedom Of Speech!!!" now, go ahead, I'll wait. :-)

This is not the world. The forum is an Internet publication which hopes to share the best quality content it can produce. There's no way to serve such a mission without elevating some contributors and sidelining others. Every form of media for hundreds of years has used an "elitist" model, it's only on the Internet that people get confused about this.

How long would you stay on the forum if it was over run by busloads full of fourth graders? You're an elitist too.

Most fourth graders are more interesting than this discussion.

We already ban low quality, which is enough. For the rest, the whole idea of a forum, instead of a publication, is that it is open to everyone and everybody can react to anyone.

I would like to suggest that the mods consider opening a new section which is readable by all, but only the mods can post there. This would allow the mods to present an uncontaminated modeling of what they'd like to see across the forum. — Hippyhead

Do you not think that dealing with "contamination" is an important part of the modelling? I agree, and have mentioned before that the way mods behave is as important as the editorial oversight.

To be fair to @Benkei, a minimum standard is not elitism. That trains charge a fare is not the same kind of thing as them having first and second class carriages. Not all restriction is elitist, but your suggestion is.

For the rest, the whole idea of a forum, instead of a publication, is that it is open to everyone and everybody can react to anyone. — Benkei

That's ONE definition of what a forum can be. A very common definition I would agree, but not the only one.

Truthfully, what annoys me is that so many forum users on every forum (been having this conversation for over 20 years) insist that EVERY forum on the net must be exactly like all the others. EVERY single forum must be open to EVERYBODY. Not just many forums, not just most forums, EVERY forum. Every single one.

Have you noticed that there are few to no professional philosophers here? That's what happens when forums use your prescription, the most qualified people walk away, and you're left with just loudmouth bozos like me. :-)

Do you not think that dealing with "contamination" is an important part of the modelling? — unenlightened

The whole rest of the forum would be available for that. I'm just suggesting a single section where the mods provide their own example of what they consider acceptable content to be. Don't just say what's bad, show what's good.

I agree, and have mentioned before that the way mods behave is as important as the editorial oversight.

Agreed, but I wouldn't call the current system "editorial oversight". It's more of a trash collecting operation. Necessary and valuable, but not really editing.

Not all restriction is elitist, but your suggestion is. — unenlightened

Honestly, I don't care about that at all. Again, every other forum of media has been doing what I suggest for centuries. Some submissions are published, while others are declined.

I would like to suggest that the mods consider opening a new section which is readable by all, but only the mods can post there. — Hippyhead

Please note what is being objected to. A single section on a single forum which is reserved for the mods. A single section, on a single forum.

Elitist! Attack on freedom of speech! Fascist take over!!!

Honestly, I don't care about that at all. — Hippyhead

Honestly, I don't care "if all the hippies cut off all their hair."

Start your own special forum then.

Nobody's argued free speech or fascism. Boring straw men.

Almost cut my hair
It happened just the other day
It was gettin' kinda long
I could-a said, it was in my way
But I didn't and I wonder why
I feel like letting my freak flag fly
And I feel like I owe it to someone

Must be because I had the flu for Christmas
And I'm not feelin' up to par
It increases my paranoia
Like lookin' at my mirror and seein' a police car
But I'm not givin' in an inch to fear
Cause I promised myself this year
I feel like I owe it to someone

When I finally get myself together
I'm gonna get down in that sunny southern weather
And I find a place inside to laugh
Separate the wheat from the chaff
I feel like I owe it to someone

Nobody's argued free speech or fascism — Benkei

You didn't, agreed. About 35 billion others on forums have though. Been there, done that. Pre-emptive strike.

Maybe spend less time on fora discussing issues with 28 billion bots.

Maybe spend less time on fora discussing issues with 28 billion bots. — Benkei

Like I'm doing now ya mean? Gotta agree.

I would like to suggest that the mods consider opening a new section which is readable by all, but only the mods can post there. — Hippyhead

We have something similar, although it's a section where only the mods can post, but it's different than you suggest because it's a section that only the mods can see.

We talk about all sorts of stuff, including discussing interesting new ideas, unlike yours.

Most fourth graders are more interesting than this discussion. — Benkei

yeah, forth graders are so cool.

Shame they grow up.

n Never understood his popularity. Three-chord songs wth tedious, tendentious lyrics.

Most fourth graders are more interesting than this discussion. — Benkei

Presumably statements like this are the kind of thing that leads to banning, if there are enough of them.

We talk about all sorts of stuff, including discussing interesting new ideas, unlike yours. — Hanover

Or like this one.

I don't see his idea being effectively countered. It's something that happens in all sorts of contexts: academia, sports, debating. It's not idiotic to restrict certain interactions to those who are considered more skilled. Is it a good idea here`? Would there be negative side effects? is he wrong that there would be any benefit to have a small subsection that did this? I am not convinced he is right. But I find it odd that moderators decided to be insulting and not to respond with much substance.

A fourth grader is more interesting than this discussion is an odd, but interesting assertion. It's odd because it is part of the discussion and part of what set the tone for the rest of the discussion. Did the discussion have to go the way it went? Is perhaps this reaction something that makes the discussion less interesting, in the longer run? But it's a silly assertion. A fourth grader is more interesting than any discussion. A fourth grader has a brain that is more complicated than any discussion or book. A fourth grader is changing rapidly in ways we still cannot completely track or understand, though we have made great strides. He or she is orders of magnitude more complicated than the works of Plato and certainly Hegel.

Though perhaps the mods were trying to demonstrate through example that there would be no role modeling potential in such a restriction discussion sub-forum. Kinda like 'Hey, this is what we'd be like.' Demonstrating concretely the foolishness, at least here, of trying Hippyhead's suggestion.

I take an about face. This was a clever (cough) Zen gestural argument that his idea was a poor one. Wink wink, nudge nudge.

We talk about all sorts of stuff, including discussing interesting new ideas, unlike yours. — Hanover

Put up or shut up? The mods claim to know good quality from poor quality. Let's see a section where the mods demonstrate that they can deliver good quality.

It's not idiotic to restrict certain interactions to those who are considered more skilled. — Coben

One point of my proposal was to discover if the mods are more skilled. No making any claim here, just asking for evidence. You know, this is a philosophy forum, things like that happen.

But I find it odd that moderators decided to be insulting and not to respond with much substance.

I don't find it odd, I find it normal, expected, routine. Perhaps that's because I'm odd. :-)

Though perhaps the mods were trying to demonstrate through example that there would be no role modeling potential in such a restriction discussion sub-forum. Kinda like 'Hey, this is what we'd be like.' Demonstrating concretely the foolishness, at least here, of trying Hippyhead's suggestion. — Coben

Whatever the quality of a mod section might be, I still think it would be useful. It would either provide a constructive example of what members should be aiming for in their own posts, or it might help the mods refine their understanding of their relationship to the forum. From what I've seen, at least some of the mods are qualified to rise to the challenge.

And for those who aren't, perhaps they could find other ways to serve the forum other than standing in judgement of member posts quality. Like for example, finding interesting writers in the blogosphere who could be persuaded to participate here. A high quality section placed prominently would help make the case that doing so was worth their time.

And finally, apologies to all readers for my um, excessive enthusiasm above. I'm a retired forum software developer, and have simply been thinking about such issues for too many years. I've been thinking about everything for too many years. Please accept my application for a geezer exception. :-)

Good news, we have our first mod submitted quality content article from Mr. Dingo Jones...

See banning thread for the original copy.

Im not out there bitching about my threads getting moved you fucking dipshit. If I was you would have a point, but im not so you dont.
I cant remember a single douchebag with these painfully stupid threads that get deleted or moved actually make a good one. Its always starts with this muddled, dogmatic talking point that they preach over and over again whether its pertinent or not. Then when they dont get the recognition of brilliance they think it deserves they make an equally unimpressive thread demanding peoples attention to their ill conceived pet philosophy/talking point.
Its just a bunch of arrogant, ignorant, Dunning-Krueger dummies who are aggressively wrong and right only by accident. And yes, this includes you, so take your brainless commentary about what I said to somebody else, shine it up, put a nice little bow on it and shove it up your ass. — Dingo Jones

Put up or shut up? The mods claim to know good quality from poor quality. Let's see a section where the mods demonstrate that they can deliver good quality. — Hippyhead

You know you can go back through a poster's posting history right? If you go to someone's profile and click on discussions, you'll see the threads they started.

Here's mine. Smite me oh mighty smiter.

You know you can go back through a poster's posting history right? If you go to someone's profile and click on discussions, you'll see the threads they started. — fdrake

Thanks for the tip, will review. No smiting for now, sorry. :-)

Rather than me honking and smiting about your threads, I'll ask this.

In your opinion, are your writings of sufficient quality to be displayed prominently, so as to...

1) be an easily discovered example of what other members should shoot for and,

2) so that interesting new visitors we'd all like to chat with will immediately discover a good reason to hang around.

If you reply yes, then my vote is, please try it.

1) be an easily discovered example of what other members should shoot for and, — Hippyhead

Sometimes I do this, sometimes I don't. I have a lot of hats. Maybe 50% of them are asshole shaped. I can write good posts sometimes.

2) so that interesting new visitors we'd all like to chat with will immediately discover a good reason to hang around. — Hippyhead

That's for the visitors to judge, not me.

Maybe 50% of them are asshole shaped. I can write good posts sometimes. — fdrake

Ha ha! I plead guilty to this description myself, and got a good laugh out of recognizing myself in your self disclosure.

So another question....

How does one engage you in an analysis of my proposal?

In what way is that “ mod submitted” dipshit? What I said is highly accurate, as you just evidenced.
First, you don’t know enough to understand how you are wrong. I am not a mod dipshit. This is Dunning Kruger, just like I said.
Second, you are on here doing exactly what I accused you of doing: repeating the same muddled talking points and infecting new threads when you dont get the proper response to your precious (“precious” Meant here in the most condescending possible sense) little ideas. You have an axe to grind, and its transparent in everything you post.
Who started this thread? You. Whats it about? The same shit everything else you say is about.
The fact you think your garbage ideas are going to be any more accepted by repetition is the third thing, arrogance.
Number 4, aggressively wrong. You are wrong, and you are aggressive about it, lacking the humility to consider the possibility you are wrong and having only the very poor option to double down, full speed ahead.
Number 5, ignorant. You at least have touched upon a few pertinent bits of knowledge but alas only enough to hop on a Dunning Kruger soapbox to support your pet idea. You clearly lack knowledge on what you talk about (philosophy, philosophers, logic, reason, burden of proof...really everything you talk about you have only superficial knowledge about).
Lastly, I included you amongst these train wreck fools, and you obliged me by not only staying true to form but also went out of your way to post my spot on analysis that is proceeded by strong evidence of its truth.
You havent been banned by the grace of the mods, but you will be eventually because you are a dipshit. You are not open to ideas or argument, you make stupid, ill considered posts, you cant help but be obnoxious since your arrogance demands ridicule (cuz youre so brilliant and correct and everyone else is so hopelessly burdened by weak thinking. Classic arrogance) and because you so poorly grasp the content of what you speak nothing you say or think will ever get any traction (except, of course, with other dipshits).

In what way is that “ mod submitted” dipshit? — DingoJones

Ok, oops, you got me. You're not a mod, totally my mistake. You're just a regular member whom the mods allow to post here. And thanks for posting in this thread, because now maybe we can make it in to the Lounge! And, I must admit, your most recent post does seem a more advanced level of the post I quoted, so we are making some kind of progress.

Put up or shut up? The mods claim to know good quality from poor quality. Let's see a section where the mods demonstrate that they can deliver good quality. — Hippyhead

Assuming your request is in good faith and not disingenuous, and that you sincerely seek the wisdom of the moderators so that you can elevate the quality of your posts, the better solution is that you request the mentorship of a moderator to assist you. That seems a much more direct method of providing you the education you desire than in asking that the moderators post in a fish bowl for your observation so that you can learn by example.

Assuming your request is not in good faith and is disingenuous, and what you really want is to create a micro-forum where you can judge the moderators and prove to yourself that you're just as good as a moderator and you were wronged by unsupported harsh judgment, I reiterate my response that your idea is a waste of time and I join those who have compared you to a fourth grader.

If the former, I'd be willing to review some of the posts that were brought into question and offer you insights into why that might have happened. I'm sure others would too, and I do mean this sincerely.

Assuming your request is in good faith and not disingenuous, and that you sincerely seek the wisdom of the moderators so that you can elevate the quality of your posts, the better solution is that you request the mentorship of a moderator to assist you. — Hanover

Who? You? Give me a break.

How does one engage you in an analysis of my proposal? — Hippyhead

It's very silly.

(1) Whether someone is a mod or not, the same rules apply regarding conduct.
(2) Regulating conduct is more a matter of enforcing basic civility while allowing for shirtness and putdowns. Things will get heated. People will find others frustrating for good reasons and stupid ones.
(3) Staff can't enforce an academic standard of quality for everything even if we wanted to. We're hobbyists that have been at it for a while, that's about it.
(4) Even if you do make an academic strength discussion of something, that doesn't mean everyone who wants to join in can write like that or even wants to, and they shouldn't be excluded.
(5) It's an open access forum. Forum members span hobbyists, people with graduate philosophy degrees, people with undergraduate degrees and people just getting interested in the discipline... Consistent academic standards are unsuitable.

If by "high quality", you mean something more nebulous than "the kind of thing that would appear on a philosophy blog or in a paper", I don't really know what you're talking about.