• god must be atheist
    5.1k
    There is no hard-and-fast rules for ousting members. Some guidelines are presented.

    I suggest that a number be established within a time frame. The number be X, and the time frame, a period Y.

    In this scheme, if any user can be shown clearly without a shadow of doubt that the user uttered greater than X number of logical fallacies within a time period of Y, then the moderators can be asked by users to exclude the offender from membership. Temporarily at first offence, for a longer period temporarily for the second offence, then permanently at the third offence.

    I suggest, X to be 10, and Y to be a week (seven days duration). There would be a time period Z, the passing of which past the last day of Y would declare amnesty for the offender. That is, if no one brings a complaint against the offender by the end of Z, then a statute of limitations will apply after Z period, which could be a month (Z=30 days).

    I really wish this to be made effective. It is a philosophy forum. Here the only "judge" should be reason and lack of ill or faulty reason. If someone keeps using faulty reasons, by way of using fallacies and other errors in arguments, then it must be punished, for they insult the judge itself.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I am a bit wary of your framework, because it seems to me that it would be a way of throwing out anyone who thinks or sees a bit outside of the box. I think that it would be the saddest possibility if people were thrown out of the forum simply because their arguments were seen as lacking. Would the moderators be the judges of expertise? Would those who were thrown out feel so demoralised and lacking any potential philosophical worth? If I was banned from the forum because I was seen as being beyond the scope of any possible thinking ability I think that I would lose the will to live entirely. Surely, ability is something which we can develop through engagement in discussion.

    I think that any exclusion from the forum should be on the basis of lack of respect for other people. Anything more, would go beyond the spirit of philosophical exploration.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    5k
    How about a soft rule of taking out the bottom 10% like the old place?
    Keeps people on their toes when you try to log in and can't.
    :scream:
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    That would reduce the number of participants in the forum to .9^n where n is the number of iterations of this process. In other words, if you take out the bottom ten percent, there is still a bottom ten percent left. That's A. B. is that you need to establish some sort of infallible metric to see who the bottom ten percent is. Part of my proposal, that is, and arbitrary number of demonstrably bad logic would suffice, so you still need my proposal at least part of it.

    Lack of respect includes 1. Not responding to direct questions 2. Responding with fallacious reasoning 3. ignoring statements and arguments. These three are very vexing. You may think swearing at others is disrespectful. But when one is at his wit's end for there is no response to reasoned arguments, one tends to lose his patience.

    As to your will to live... you several times in the forums defended the notion of free will. Will something different than to be on the forum to be your life's meaning. Easily done, you have free will.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I agree with your wider definition of lack of respect. However, I still believe that it would be very complex if moderators were in the process of seeking to eliminate people without some clear basis for doing so and, it could become very arbitrary and, potentially, discriminatory.

    My point about the will to live was not meant in quite the way you interpreted and I certainly hope that I could live without this forum. I use it presently by choice. However, I would question a forum which was trying to detect logical fallacies. It would mimic institutions of education which reject certain people as 'failures' and it would become a culture of exclusion.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    There would be a clear basis, which is the occurrence of clear and indubitable fallacy or ill reasoning.

    Your objection of "culture of exclusivity" applies, because... this is a philosophy forum. All philosophy relies on logic and reason. If you base some claim on other than that, it is not philosophy... and therefore it does not belong to a philosophy forum.

    It's like anything else. If you go to a forum on flowers, and you keep talking about elephants, you can get banned. If you go to a political forum, and you keep talking about your medical condition that the doctors are trying to fix, you can get banned. If you go to a medical forum, and try to talk about how the last election was fixed, then you can get banned. If you go to a philosophy forum and you make claims that are not based on philosophical considerations, then you ought to get banned.

    Yes, it's exclusivism. So is everything else. The army, the education system, work, even your family depends on exclusivism. You can't let just anyone have sex with your wife. You can't have just anything said on a forum.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I am all in favour of logic and rationality, but I certainly don't wish to be part of a forum which is about looking for people's faults as a basis for ousting them. It would give certain people who are ranked as the judges too much power. I am not going to waste any more time on this, and you wil see what others think, and the moderators, but I feel that your suggestion is extremely negative.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    My two bit(con)s –

    I believe banning should be reserved for bad conduct, specifically refusing to comply with a Moderator's instructions either posted or private messaged; 2 warnings, then banned for 3rd non-compliance. Three strikes and you're out just like baseball. No appeal. The non-paying customer is never right! GFO anywhere else on the internet, friend / troll.Temporary or permanent bans should be up to the internal deliberations among Admins & Mods. Just don't "punish" disagreeable content. Also, don't "reward" disagreeable conduct.

    180 Proof
    :death: :flower:

    p.s. I really prefer no banning but clearly the measure is a necessary evil that has to be done in order to make TPF worth the trouble for those of us seeking mostly mature, reasonable, informed banter, discussions & debates. I love rodeo clowning Dunning-Kruger trolls and throwing beatdowns on self-fellating sophist poseurs, but anything to class-up the joint I love even more.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    It isn't the role of members to "oust" other members (that's cliquey and elitist) it's the job of the moderators. Anyone can censor an annoying post just by ignoring it. It's easy.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    I don't know if you read my post or just a few sentences of it.

    1. I did not mean that members should oust other members. It remains in the hand of the moderators.
    2. I offered an objective measure instead of a subjective one that could be used to see if people are fit to use the service.
    3. It would not be cliquey and elitist if it applies to all equally, which it would.

    I don't know how much more you could have possibly misunderstood and misrepresent my intention and my solution.

    4. Ignoring posts that are cutting and contain obviously false accusations is not easy. Accusations of calling the other's opinion wrong by wrongful judgment is very difficult to ignore. You make it sound like it was child's play to ignore those.

    The entire idea of the site is exchange of ideas. If people ignore each other's posts (like you did with my content and just making a judgment on it after a superficial reading, which I presume has happened), then the site loses its intended functionality.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k

    There was nothing superficial about my reading. You are attempting to impose your idea of a rule on the moderators and the forum. That isn't how the forum works. It's a diverse community and it demands a flexible standard, which is what is accomplished by having human moderators exercising human judgement.
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    flexible standards lead to favouritism and bias. Standards should not be flexible. Is a meter or a yard flexible in tolerance to length? Is the speed of light flexible in speed? Is the marriage vow flexible in fidelity? Standards are by definition rigid.

    And I am not asking for a rigid, inflexible forum. All I am asking is for the bread and butter of philosophy to be observed: to become and remain logical and reasonable. This is not negotiable in philosophy, yet there are some users here who rampantly ignore this call by philosophy.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    flexible standards lead to favouritism and bias.god must be atheist
    No more than minority standards lead to elitism and exclusivity. Philosophy is not the exclusive domain of academics and should be friendly to a diverse background of genuine interest. If anything, I feel politeness should govern, and rudeness be excluded. But that's just me. I'll settle for the current scheme of "Moderation."
  • Sir2u
    3.5k
    Maybe it would be wiser to spend the time showing the wankers the error of their ways instead of trying to work out if they should be allowed to stay or not.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.