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. — fdrake

Correct, you have no idea what I'm talking about.

By "high quality" I mean, for example, that you might have read the first post in the thread and responded to it in some manner. Instead, you've gone off on a rant which has nothing at all to do with my proposal. Same for Hanover's post, just pile of non-responsive unrelated gibberish.

Anyway, who cares. My mistake.

Yo maa braws, lemme posit sumptin' for a quick secund...

Dunning Kruger, baby

Hey, here's a plan: hammer the Mods whatever they do, so they quit, and we can write any old shite we like.

That'll fix things.

By "high quality" I mean, for example, that you might have read the first post in the thread and responded to it in some manner. Instead, you've gone off on a rant which has nothing at all to do with my proposal. Same for Hanover's post, just pile of non-responsive unrelated gibberish. — Hippyhead

I did read it. There's no definition of quality in the OP, only an implicit equation of mod posts with quality standards. You can read the list I wrote to you as an list of reasons why I think having academic quality standards goes against the open access nature of the forum.

The kind of standards which could be enforced more strictly mostly regard tone; we could enforce people to be more polite. I believe that that incentivizes passive aggression more than civility. As it stands, posters get kicked if their engagements are predominantly excessively rude and excessively inarticulate. The bar's far below formal debate or academic argument intentionally.

Regardless, those are good ideals to try and emulate. It's definitely exemplary content if you approach something like that (@Srap Tasmaner, @Nagase come to mind here) - but it can also be good content if it's a provocative, insightful and brief treatment of an issue (@Banno is particularly gifted at this). Those are great, but not necessary.

Are you actually just being provocative on purpose here? I mean, it's really a double bind. If a mod disagrees with the idea, a reader can plausibly infer that staff acknowledge that we are naughty. If a mod agrees with the idea, a reader can plausibly infer that staff are elitist.

I want this!