The quote is a good example of her low quality content too. She was simply asked to entertain a philosophical thought experiment and acted as if the whole idea was outrageous. Not the type of thing you want on a philosophy forum.

:up:

Instead of debating the justice of bans after they have already been enacted, why should we not do so before? Wouldn’t this be more democratic? Wouldn’t the opinions of the members be valuable to the moderators in making their decision? It is much easier to change your opinion before, than after it has been expressed; much more difficult to reverse a decision after, rather than before it has been handed down.

I suggest that any moderator who is inclined to ban someone first publish his thoughts here, and invite the forum to weigh in on his opinion before he take action.

No.

I suggest that any moderator who is inclined to ban someone first publish his thoughts here, and invite the forum to weigh in on his opinion before he take action. — Todd Martin

Even I, who has taken strong exception to some of the moderator's recent bannings, think that is a terrible idea. I'm sure others will point out that the forum is not a democracy.

Wouldn’t this be more democratic? — Todd Martin

This isn't a fucking democracy.

Most folk here can't recognise a decent argument when it's right in their faces. Putting mod powers in their hands would destroy the forums. We need to dissuade mediocrity, not encourage it.

Ooh, insta consensus. I like it.

Except Baden. Get rid of him.

Even better. :party:

:grin:

Why don't we put this episode of "Bannings" out of it's misery.

Putting mod powers in their hands would destroy the forums — Banno

It is the character of a tyrant to consider opposing opinions to be the work of those wishing to take away his powers.

It's not the opinion that earns the ban.

That seems to be a point that is repeatedly missed.

@Banno

I was referring not to the opinion of the person banned, but rather to that of the other members who oppose it.

Agree with the bannings. We can't all be mods, the mods keep this forum running, and it's a good forum. It can't simply be anything goes with no guidelines, it would devolve into chaos in a couple of nanoseconds.

It can't simply be anything goes with no guidelines, it would devolve into chaos in a couple of nanoseconds. — Wayfarer

I don’t disagree that there should be guidelines. But the nature of guidelines need not consist in the potentially arbitrary rule of an oligarchy.

The rule in this forum is in the hands of an oligarchy. There may be nothing inherently wrong with that. My point is that this little group of all-powerful ppl only hears dissent AFTER it has acted...never, before.

We can't all be mods, the mods keep this forum running, and it's a good forum. It can't simply be anything goes with no guidelines, it would devolve into chaos in a couple of nanoseconds. — Wayfarer

I agree, but the moderators still have the responsibility to provide fair, reasonable, and consistent decisions.

The rule in this forum is in the hands of an oligarchy. There may be nothing inherently wrong with that. My point is that this little group of all-powerful ppl only hears dissent AFTER it has acted...never, before. — Todd Martin

Yes. Baden et. al. are all-powerful rulers over a tiny, tiny kingdom.

It's really not all that hard not to get banned under the current system.

It's really not all that hard not to get banned under the current system. — Hanover

I was threatened with a ban several months ago for espousing a very doctrinaire opinion of ancient philosophy which, however, collided with a very recent opinion that is against “homophobia”...but I wasn’t scared of anything.

From a few weeks ago ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544736

As the old saying goes: "It's often better to ask for forgiveness than permission." But maybe, instead, first bans should be temporary – a "cool-off period" of a month(?) – then this thread, or another like it, is polled (requiring a majority / supermajority approval) before a banned member is unbanned; and, if necessary, [the second ban will be permanent. Is that fair enough for you?

@180 Proof

You speak like a member of the oligarchy...are you?

I feel like Joe Manchin: yes, I think your proposal is an improvement, and I would vote for it...whoops!...forgot this isn’t a democracy!

Read my link. I'm an anarch if I'm anybody at all.

(Btw, pardon me, but eff Joe Manchin. That cunt claims he wants to "protect the rights of the minority party in the US Senate" by preserving a 90 year old procedural rule used to suppress the rights of minority citizens particularly in the old Confederacy. The jim crow filibuster is the hill that good old boy chooses to die on – well, with any luck, it will kill him after the Dems gain 1-3 senate seats in midterm elections next year.)

the moderators still have the responsibility to provide fair, reasonable, and consistent decisions. — T Clark

Actually, since it's a private forum, they can do what they like.

And I like what they do. Mostly. If anything I'd like to see more bannings.

But if you don't then you are welcome to go elsewhere.

I don't get why people are so concerned with "democracy" in this context and need to accuse people of harbouring tyrannical aspirations.

You're in a club owned by jamalrob and we're the bouncers.

We Americans have an inflated sense of power and privilege.

You're in a club owned by jamalrob and we're the bouncers — Benkei

As a former NYC bouncer myself, I commend the TPF staff for your incredible restraint tossing out the douches & the rowdies. Back in the day, my crew wasn't ever so ... 'genteel'. Anyway. No blood, no foul, right? Just one patron's two bits. :up:

From my side it's not so much restraint but a worry I'm letting personal feelings cloud my judgment. I prefer to err on the side of caution as a result.

I do think there's a "type" recently that gets banned sooner or later. It's posters who think everybody else are (is?) stupid and believe they're capable of judging discussions from an elevated, enlightened position. Invariably that's a precursor to a lack of self reflection and that translates to unexamined positions and bad argumentation.

:100:

Banned @Nelson E Garcia for PMed advertisements of his website. If anyone receives any kind of spammy PMs, always report them, please. Offenders will be instabanned.