The terms of the debate.

unenlightened

I'm not talking about Father Richard Rohr at all... as I made abundantly clear: — Agustino

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1104/father-richard-rohr-at-science-and-nonduality-conference#Item_98

If I was an active moderator, this would be a clear instruction to delete every post by the gentleman from the thread, for being off topic. But that was the bad old days...

I'm not wanting to start a campaign here, but rather to solicit some views and analysis on the terms of debate as a concept. It is probably well understood by most that guidelines and moderation are sometimes necessary; that a free for all is a free for none. It is also widely accepted by philosophers that any concept can be held up to examination, but only on the condition of taking language in general to be, if not non-controversial, at least held in abeyance.

I hope it is already clear that there is a difficulty in framing a debate on how a debate should be framed, and one can see connections perhaps with post truth, political correctness, fake news, media bias, opposition and protest, and other current controversies.

Here, discussion is ordered into topics and threads, and it is sometimes a delicate business to hold to the thread of a thread because the snakes of philosophical thought are so intertwined, that questions of the fundaments, ontology, realism/idealism, concepts of mind, knowledge, language, seem to be related to every conceivable topic. Nevertheless, the mere happenstance that we order our discussions gives rise to the notion of on- and off- topicality. It is fundamental even to a current affairs programme...

Off topic material stifles debate, by turning every discussion into the same discussion, of everything and nothing. The thread linked above illustrates this. But hopefully, this thread will not be diverted too much into a debate about that thread, nor about the state of modern politics. Rather, I am hoping to look in a more abstract way at how our conversations need to be ordered to maximise freedom, given that absolute freedom is both impossible and undesirable. In this sense, it might be better classified under politics, or metaphysics than feedback, but I feel that the latter classification best communicates the particular knottiness of a discussion about discussion.

Agustino

Off topic material stifles debate, by turning every discussion into the same discussion, of everything and nothing. — unenlightened

Okay, I agree with that fundamentally. However, how do we decide what is and isn't off-topic? For example, in the Father Rohr thread, talk of women's underwear is off-topic - clearly. But is talk of New Age off-topic? Clearly, to my mind, it depends on how the thread evolves. If "New Age" is off-topic, then it should have been deleted the first time it appeared in that thread (and that wasn't even one of my posts in fact). There was a discussion going on in that thread about New Age long before I actually commented on it. So if a thread is like a river, then that river has sub-streams which come and join into it. What I said belongs to a sub-stream - it's not directly relevant to the video, but neither is it completely irrelevant to the topic. To someone who has watched the video, they could say "uhh I think Rohr is New Age", or "I don't think Rohr is New Age", and then they could discuss what bearings, if any, New Age has on Rohr or whatever they want.

Baden

I'm not talking about Father Richard Rohr at all... as I made abundantly clear: — Agustino

For the record, I've now excised @Agustino from the discussion. That also meant excising other's in-discussion complaints about him valid as they may have been. Safest thing is probably not to engage with anyone who is off-topic (in an unacceptable way) as your responses to them need to be binned along with their posts.

Streetlight

Public forums as these are, I actually don't think it is reasonable to expect that threads will or ought to remain on topic. At the very best, a threadstarter is a curator: he or she sets out the themes that they would like to be followed up, but it's in the hands of the respondents after that, among whom the threadstarter belongs to after the post has taken off. If we even want to pretend to aspire to practise philosophy, we ought to follow wherever ideas take us.

On the other hand, I think it is fair that whatever path a thread may go down, it ought to remain open to people to engage with. That is, the criteria ought to be 'public robustness', as it were: to what extent does this 'sub-debate' invite contributions from others to participate and further the discussion? If the digression happens because two people are bickering over some tangental debate that no one but the two people discussing can possibly have a stake in - well, that's a matter of dragging down the quality of public discussion. That kind of derailment pleases no one, and is generally another name for a shit-fight.

But that's just my take.

Baden

↪StreetlightX

Yes, as in this case, the fact that the conversation took a different turn wasn't the primary reason for the deletions, but the nature and tone of that turn was. Speaking of turns, let's bear this in mind.

But hopefully, this thread will not be diverted too much into a debate about that thread — unenlightened

Metaphysician Undercover

Off topic material stifles debate, by turning every discussion into the same discussion, of everything and nothing. The thread linked above illustrates this. But hopefully, this thread will not be diverted too much into a debate about that thread, nor about the state of modern politics. Rather, I am hoping to look in a more abstract way at how our conversations need to be ordered to maximise freedom, given that absolute freedom is both impossible and undesirable. In this sense, it might be better classified under politics, or metaphysics than feedback, but I feel that the latter classification best communicates the particular knottiness of a discussion about discussion. — unenlightened

I look at off-topicness as a necessary evil. It's bad because its digressive, wastes time, and distracts from the overall flow of the thread. It is necessary though, because the points of disagreement, and misunderstanding are usually not within the scope of the subject of the thread, though they manifest as disagreement in the subject of the thread. So if we adhere to the subject, we will just have people talking past each other, restating their own opinions, over and over, without getting to the root of the disagreement, what causes the difference of opinion, concerning the subject.

Of course it happens that one fundamental disagreement, one root cause, will manifest in a difference of opinion on many different subjects, so we might keep revisiting that fundamental issue. The goal might be to find one of these related subjects where there is agreement of opinion, and then bring that agreement down to bear on the fundamental disagreement, determining where the inconsistency lies.

unenlightened

For the record, I've now excised Agustino from the discussion. — Baden

Well that's my op exemplar thoroughly undermined. What shall we talk about now? Do you like fishing?

Baden

↪unenlightened

I think we all know what a shit-storm looks like. The topic is still worthy of discussion.

unenlightened

I think we all know what a shit-storm looks like. — Baden

No we don't all know that. It is exactly the distinction between a vigorous debate and a shit storm that constitutes the topic of this thread. Moderation is inevitably controversial, and inevitably develops or degenerates inside the very practice that it regulates.

Your moderating response to this thread illustrates that fact, and in so doing illustrates the very danger I was trying to indicate. Clearly, the rules have changed as a result of this thread, because the exemplar thread had already been brought to moderators attention and no action was taken.

I think your action was premature as a clamp down, and overly tardy as routine; it makes it more difficult for me, and probably others, to speak to the subject freely.

I'm not wanting to start a campaign here, — unenlightened

... but unfortunately, you responded as if I had. So, what does a shit storm look like, and how can we all avoid contributing to them?

mcdoodle

It's an anarchic setup. That's both a great pleasure, and infuriating, about all our chats. I think I accepted what I descried to be the principle of the old forum: all commenters owe respect to the thread-originator to honour the initial subject, no matter how far they might seem to stray. This duty is only reasonably overturned if the thread-originator vanishes.

Baden

Your moderating response to this thread illustrates that fact, and in so doing illustrates the very danger I was trying to indicate — unenlightened

My moderating response was to the fact that the shit-storm didn't clear itself up, which yes, you did bring to my attention. But it wasn't because I thought you were requesting action as you made clear you weren't.

I think your action was premature as a clamp down, and overly tardy as routine; it makes it more difficult for me, and probably others, to speak to the subject freely. — unenlightened

What I'm concerned with is what makes it easy for people who write OPs to have their OPs talked about and what facilitates those coming to an OP for the first time getting involved with it. Yes, I could have done this earlier when you mentioned it in the mod forum or later if it went on more, but every moderator is going to have a different point at which they decide enough is enough. There are plenty of other examples of this sort of thing in the forum for those who want to look. I didn't consider that particular discussion crucial to this debate.

So, what does a shit storm look like, and how can we all avoid contributing to them? — unenlightened

I don't think it's that complicated. A barrage of traded insults (sometimes deserved, sometimes not) that goes on for several pages of posts is what I would term a "shit storm". They sometimes clear up, they sometimes don't. Reporting posts that piss us off and ignoring provocateurs are two ways of avoiding them. Even a quick trade of insults and then directly back to the matter at hand can work.

Anyway, I took your OP to be about something beyond that. As you said yourself:

I am hoping to look in a more abstract way at how our conversations need to be ordered to maximise freedom, given that absolute freedom is both impossible and undesirable. In this sense, it might be better classified under politics, or metaphysics than feedback, but I feel that the latter classification best communicates the particular knottiness of a discussion about discussion. — unenlightened

Thorongil

Much ado about nothing it seems to me....

aletheist

Here is a relevant quote, attributed to Stephen Covey, that I just came across.

Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.

Metaphysician Undercover

This duty is only reasonably overturned if the thread-originator vanishes. — mcdoodle

What constitutes "vanishing"? If the originator must be present in order that the thread topic be followed, then why not leave the judgement of what is acceptable discussion, to the discretion of that originator? If that originator believes a particular post is not conducive to good discussion concerning the stipulated subject, then notify the poster to stay out, or start a new thread. That's common practise by some already.

What constitutes "vanishing"? If the originator must be present in order that the thread topic be followed, then why not leave the judgement of what is acceptable discussion, to the discretion of that originator? If that originator believes a particular post is not conducive to good discussion concerning the stipulated subject, then notify the poster to stay out, or start a new thread. That's common practise by some already. — Metaphysician Undercover

From a staff perspective, that's just hypothetical. It's down to the staff to make that judgement, notify members, and take any action deemed necessary. The judgement of the originator doesn't have the same standing, and they are unable to take action in the ways that staff can, although they can flag any posts they think ought to be flagged, and we encourage them to do so.

This forum doesn't have an anarchic set up. In practice, what you suggest isn't how it works, nor should it be, nor likely will it be, in my opinion. Taking the originator's expressed views into consideration is one thing... although sometimes they don't express any further views for a long period of time, or at all - which is what is meant by "vanishing" - so, in those cases, we could go no further than making assumptions, such as how they'd like the discussion to turn out, or whether they even care. But if/when they do express their views in that way, we don't have to act accordingly, nor should we necessarily. Blind obedience would not be ideal.

This place is moderated based on a similar assumption to the old place, which is similar to what you'd expect of an academic journal - meaning that it is more about editorial standards and what the readership would expect than the opinion of the originator, which might conflict with that.

unenlightened

Anyway, I consider your OP to be about something beyond that. As you said yourself:

I am hoping to look in a more abstract way at how our conversations need to be ordered to maximise freedom, given that absolute freedom is both impossible and undesirable. In this sense, it might be better classified under politics, or metaphysics than feedback, but I feel that the latter classification best communicates the particular knottiness of a discussion about discussion. — Baden

Indeed. But how can I remain abstract, when you are being so practical? I don't disagree with your decision, as the op makes very clear. But you have cut my Gordian knot, and I can no longer untangle it. My discussion has been shut down with a mandated agreement, and I am left with the half-discussion of your moderating decision, which is indeed not complicated.

Much ado about nothing it seems to me.... — Thorongil

Inclinations vary. One of the differences between myself and Paul at the old site was that he was fairly tolerant of flaming, and I was considerably less so. Here, I have taken a back seat, and the tolerance of flames, and other things is greater - so it seems to me. I come across a deal of stuff I would intervene in if I was still intervening.

It is generally the case that whatever is accepted becomes acceptable, so I think the terms of debate are important. If moderating is loosened, discussion becomes more informal, which might be pleasant, but it also becomes potentially more unpleasant, and the failure to suppress aggression risks alienating a whole swathe of voices. Again compared to the old site, for example, I think this place is uncongenial to women. I see that as a failing.

That is to say, tolerance in one direction constitutes intolerance in another, at least in the sense that one man's meaty discussion is another man's poisonous atmosphere. That there is no issue for you simply places you amongst the meat-eaters, It doesn't indicate that they should prevail.

Agustino

Again compared to the old site, for example, I think this place is uncongenial to women. I see that as a failing. — unenlightened

We never had a lot of women members, either here or there.

Thorongil

↪unenlightened

Don't read or post about what you don't like or aren't interested in. It's very simple.

Don't read or post about what you don't like or aren't interested in. It's very simple. — Thorongil

Not if you're a moderator, which he is. A moderator who doesn't read what he doesn't like wouldn't be a very good moderator, since what you don't like to read - and unenlightened has referred to flaming, for example - may well be what needs to be moderated. But how would you know if you don't read it to find out?

Agustino

↪unenlightened

Alas, I must congratulate you, despite not agreeing with you. You twisted the rest of the moderators hands and changed the rules of the forum almost single handedly, without doing anything yourself. The foresight alone is admirable :)

Hanover

As they say, bad facts make bad law, meaning the best way to get a bad rule change is to have the rule maker be confronted with a bad set of facts. I can't say that I've read the exemplar thread cited in this thread, but, from what I've gathered, there were some really bad posts in it, and the mods finally had to arrive at a way to bring that under control, and there's now some concerned with the precedent set by those decisions. If I've gotten that right, then, yeah, we have some bad law created by the bad facts.

But, let's stop really being so complicated about this, with all our talk about rules, precedent, clear moderating rules, bad facts, and bad law. The problem most often comes down to someone. Get rid of that someone and we no longer have all these complicated problems.

The reference was made to Paul and how he handled things. He not only didn't have rules, but he expressed a disdain for rules. What he did was sort of decide, based upon what he thought was right and wrong, and just banned people unapologetically.

Do that.

unenlightened

↪Agustino

I can be a sneaky bastard at times, but this has not gone the way I intended at all.

Don't read or post about what you don't like or aren't interested in. It's very simple. — Thorongil

"If you don't like it, go somewhere else." I don't like this attitude, and I don't find it interesting, but if I ignore it, I legitimise it. It's very simple for someone who is unbothered by bad behaviour, and to an extent it is good advice to ignore it, up to a point.

But 'it' is not that simple. We have moderators deletions and bans because one has to read stuff before one can decide it is unlikeable or uninteresting, and one clearly does not want discussions to become dominated with unlikeable and uninteresting stuff, because one loses interest in reading or contributing anything at all. That this happens was demonstrated in the shout box by a poster removing his link rather than have to read the vitriol that ensued.

unenlightened

But, let's stop really being so complicated about this, with all our talk about rules, precedent, clear moderating rules, bad facts, and bad law. The problem most often comes down to someone. Get rid of that someone and we no longer have all these complicated problems.

The reference was made to Paul and how he handled things. He not only didn't have rules, but he expressed a disdain for rules. What he did was sort of decide, based upon what he thought was right and wrong, and just banned people unapologetically. — Hanover

How odd, to call for us to stop using a whole lot of terms that you have just introduced for the first time.

Paul had lengthy guidelines both for posters and for moderators, and there was a good deal of discussion of them and some amendments were made. One of the complaints moderators frequently heard was along the lines of 'why have you deleted my post when there are all these other posts that are just as bad?' The usual response was that moderators don't see everything, but it is nevertheless the case that what is allowed to pass sets the tone for others as to what is acceptable and so increases. Keeping the tone overall moderate is important, and letting things slide and then banning is a really poor policy.

Thorongil

↪unenlightened

Sorry, but you're not going to get my sympathy. You're a mod on a tiny Internet forum complaining about having to read stuff that mods read. So? Don't be a mod, then. You're here on a voluntary basis.

I don't like this attitude, and I don't find it interesting, but if I ignore it, I legitimise it — unenlightened

No, you just ignore it. And why should I care if you don't like my attitude or find it uninteresting? You're just emoting here. But I think I know why. You'd like to be able to wield the power to delete and ban whatever and whomever doesn't meet your own subjective criteria for being "likable" and "interesting," and you're butthurt about not being able to do so. Once again, tough nuts. If I were a mod, I wouldn't delete anything short of non-joking threats of violence and spam. That would be "maximum freedom," to borrow your phrase. A thread gets off topic? Create a new thread for it. I've seen that happen here before actually. Creating essay length threads complaining about how you can't be as authoritarian as you'd like to in one small corner of the Internet is to be really petty.

unenlightened

↪Thorongil

Whatever gives you the impression I want any sympathy?

But I think I know why. You'd like to be able to wield the power to delete and ban whatever and whomever doesn't meet your own subjective criteria for being "likable" and "interesting," — Thorongil

Well that's just butt stupid. I do have that power, but have decided I don't want to exercise it any more.

Creating essay length threads complaining about how you can't be as authoritarian as you'd like to in one small corner of the Internet is to be really petty. — Thorongil

It's rather a shame you don't take your own advice and stop reading my posts, and making petty complaints about my petty complaints. That's the thing with trolls, they won't stay under their own bridges, but have to invade everyone else's with their contradictory and hypocritical comments. You have no insight, nothing to say on the topic, but here you are again making your usual dismissive and vacuous remarks. You do understand that what I am doing here is troll baiting, don't you?

Benkei

It might be me but I read the OP as an invitation to find a shared MO that's conducive to the quality of this site without moderating action. But maybe unen can clarify.

Value judgments over other people's characters generally don't help.

Thorongil

It's rather a shame you don't take your own advice and stop reading my posts — unenlightened

I said that one needn't read someone's posts if they don't want to. I wanted to read your posts in this thread, so I've responded.

That's the thing with trolls, they won't stay under their own bridges, but have to invade everyone else's with their contradictory and hypocritical comments. You have no insight, nothing to say on the topic, but here you are again making your usual dismissive and vacuous remarks. You do understand that what I am doing here is troll baiting, don't you? — unenlightened

How typical. Just label someone a troll if you disagree with or don't like them.

It might be me but I read the OP as an invitation to find a shared MO that's conducive to the quality of this site without moderating action. — Benkei

Thorongil likes simple solutions, so here's a simple solution: don't leave it until a moderator comes along and takes moderator action, but instead take action yourself. If you notice that you're going off-topic in a way which is likely to be found objectionable, then just stop it, and take it elsewhere if you want to carry on the digression. But try to do so in a way which doesn't cross the line. If you have difficulty noticing this sort of thing, then perhaps put more effort in. The staff aren't the only ones who can edit comments, you can do so too - your own. So do so if you think you've gone too far. I don't just moderate others, I moderate myself sometimes too. This applies to me, just as it applies to everyone else.

Moliere

It seems to me that the OP sets the initial 'boundaries' of a discussion, and that the author of said OP has the priority to alter those boundaries over others.

If I'm stepping into someone else's discussion then, albeit unsuccesfully at times, I will try to stay within what I perceive the author to be interested in.

If I were to introduce something, then it seems that the relation would have to go "downwards" -- meaning, the OP sets what is most general and topic for this discussion, and we can introduce things that are more specific, but it wouldn't make much sense to go upwards in generality (at least, generally speaking).

unenlightened

It might be me but I read the OP as an invitation to find a shared MO that's conducive to the quality of this site without moderating action. But maybe unen can clarify.

Value judgments over other people's characters generally don't help. — Benkei

The original intention was much wider than just this board. There is an ongoing global issue about freedom of speech; the backlash against political correctness, the triumph of lies and propaganda, and the stifling of debate through the undermining of its value as a means of establishing truth.

My thesis is that freedom of speech requires moderation. Without moderation, there is no freedom but the dictatorship of the trivial, aggressive, and hysterical. WRT this forum, the only way to manage with a minimum of moderation is to have a consistently intolerant program of moderation, such that folks learn quickly what is and is not acceptable. This, you will appreciate, is my inner Augustino expressing itself. Liberal socialists need to toughen up.

One has to make judgements of character; how else does one select moderators, politicians, spouses or employees? Having said that, expressing such judgements is almost always off topic in the threads.
This particular thread is concerned with the character of the forum in general, established by posting habits and moderating habits, but more generally with the character of debate in the world at large.

Look at this, for example:

Creating essay length threads complaining about how you can't be as authoritarian as you'd like to in one small corner of the Internet is to be really petty. — Thorongil

I wanted to read your posts in this thread, so I've responded. — Thorongil

How can one have a sensible conversation about anything with this sort of nonsense littering up the thread? I'd far rather have some adverts. And of course there will be more where that came from.

How can one have a sensible conversation about anything with this sort of nonsense littering up the thread? — unenlightened

He kind of has a point, you know. If you had've ignored his original comment, then it might've stopped there. But you replied, and then he replied, and so on, and so there were more of those sort of comments "littering up the thread". You've called him a "troll" and have accused him of talking "nonsense". He's called you "butthurt" and "petty". Neither are particularly productive, it seems to me. And before somebody calls me a hypocrite, I am aware of my own shortcomings - I'm only human, like the rest of you. (Except I'm really an owl).

And besides, aren't we having a sensible conversion nevertheless? Some of us are, anyway.

The terms of the debate.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions