He kind of has a point... — Sapientia

Do you really think so? I thought he might have a point too, and that is why I responded. I'm quite amenable to having differences of opinion. There is the principle of charity that wants people to have a point, even if it's mistaken. It takes a few exchanges to really bring out that there is no point, only a desire to disrupt and humiliate.

Do you really think so? — unenlightened

In a sense and to some extent, yes. But then, so do you, and so does Benkei. (As well as others. Hopefully I have one too (Who am I kidding? Of course I do)).

You know who else has a point? John Stuart Mill with regards to toleration. I am also amenable to having differences of opinion, as well as differences in attitude, values, beliefs, and writing style. But there is and should be a red line, and you cross it at your peril. Some people find that out the hard way, like Milo Yiannopoulos. He got fired and his publisher cancelled the publication of his upcoming book. I wouldn't want to see a similar thing happen here with certain members who I like having around getting themselves banned for not reining it in.

Go get yourself a beer lad -- I donated some some money via pay pal -- this has probably been the most fruitless thread I have ever seen.

Go get yourself a beer lad -- I donated some some money via pay pal -- this has probably been the most fruitless thread I have ever seen. — Emptyheady

Here's to fruitless threads!

Isn't beer one of your five-a-day?

No, wait, that's cider.

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. — Sapientia

Are you saying that it is inappropriate for the originator of a thread to tell participants that they have stepped outside the bounds of the topic, as many presently do?

Are you saying that it is inappropriate for the originator of a thread to tell participants that they have stepped outside the bounds of the topic, as many presently do? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. If that's all you meant, then I misunderstood. You asked, "Why not leave the judgement of what is acceptable discussion, to the discretion of that originator?". My reply is that sometimes that's not enough, and so sometimes staff should intervene.

Well the subject of this thread appears to be what to do about off-topicness. There is first, an issue as to what constitutes off-topic. Shouldn't it be the originator of the thread, first and foremost, who decides what is off and what is on topic?

Well the subject of this thread appears to be what to do about off-topicness. There is first, an issue as to what constitutes off-topic. Shouldn't it be the originator of the thread, first and foremost, who decides what is off and what is on topic? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I suppose so, except where staff should step in. Like I said, the readership are important too. They will expect a discussion to relate to the title and opening post, and not veer off prematurely into some distracting and unwanted tangent - regardless of whether the creator of the discussion is okay with it.

had've — Sapientia

:-|

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

Reads a lot better.

(Y)

Well the subject of this thread appears to be what to do about off-topicness. — Metaphysician Undercover

The subject is governance. The feedback I am giving is that the governance of the forum, like the governance of many places in the world is failing. I notice that people are confused about the subject, are tending on one side to hasty reactions, and on the other to hasty dismissals.

There are those that are happy with the regime, who think any discussion is fruitless, petty, whining, or some such, and are happy to contribute their views, which they presumably think are fruit of some kind. Then there are the moderators themselves, who are obliged to consider my criticisms but seem to be inclined to destroy the evidence and 'sort out' the problem, rather than to actually look at what the problem is.

The thesis that it is fruitless to consider what is fruitless is one that I dismiss without argument as being contradictory and fruitless. However, given that it is an honest view, it seems that it needs to be expressed, and addressed in some way, if only by pointing out the contradiction.

My wish for the forum is that it should be more interesting and readable, and more significant than the comments section of a youtube video. This requires governance, it doesn't happen on its own. Such governance needs to be in the interests of, and acceptable to, the averagely interesting and readable contributor. (excuse me for stating the blindingly obvious, but in the circumstances it seems I need to start from first principles).

So this particular little thread started to become part of my thinking when I noticed that a respectable if sometimes irritating member had posted a quite interesting video, and then, as a result of negative comments made without even watching the video or knowing the speaker from elsewhere, had withdrawn it. This example of the good being driven out by the bad made me realise that personal attacks, ridicule, browbeating, and the proliferation of nonsense act as negative moderation themselves.

There are immoderators active on this site weeding out the good posts and posters, and encouraging the bad. I do not moderate on this site, but I still philosophise, and so I have been thinking and posting about the issue, relating it to current affairs, and doing my best in my own posts to encourage folks to do some thinking about what is going on. It's an uphill battle.

The problem, then, is how to raise the tone of debate, how to prevent good posters from being discouraged and silenced, how to maximise freedom, given that laisse faire does not lead to the desired result, but to the degeneration of the site. So this means we have to reach some sort of consensus about what makes a good post and what makes a bad post, and this is not all that easy, because, as I pointed out above, someone can honestly think that this discussion is fruitless, and they might be right, so I ought to at least consider it.

And as I am getting it from both sides, as it were, from the moderators 'everyone knows what a shit storm is' and from the immoderators, 'this is an essay length petty complaint', I have considered it, and concluded that both sides are wrong. This is an important and timely issue, that people don't want to go into because it is so intractable, and because it reflects upon the posters and moderators themselves. It is a painful topic.

So to continue the story, I persuaded the poster to put the video up again, which he did in a new thread. And what ensued was the sequence now deleted and characterised as a shit storm, in which I took no small part by way of calling out what I saw as bad behaviour being repeated at some length, intimidating the op and preventing intelligent discussion. Since I do not moderate myself, I drew this to the attention of the staff, and no action was taken, until I started this thread, using that thread as an example to illustrate the current debate. And then the shit storm was quickly excised.

This is unfortunate, because although it was unpleasant and very much off topic, the shit storm brought out various issues, and illustrated some of the difficulties that an ordinary poster faces when moderation is lacking. And this is another illustration of the difficulty of moderation; from my point of view, the shit storm was a valuable illustrative sequence that ought to have been preserved in order to be criticised and understood (or perhaps as an awful warning).

Now one of those issues, which has come up here as well, is 'just ignore it'. Well, no. We have been doing that and so have the moderators, and it does not go away, but proliferates. Engage, ignore, report, moderate, withdraw. there is I think no clear rule to be made as to what is best to do in every circumstance, But I am quite sure that ignore as a general policy does not work.

I suppose that the nearest I can get to a policy to recommend is something like this:

For ordinary members, ask yourself if your post is making a positive contribution, does it encourage philosophical engagement or add interest for others, does it clarify or confuse, does it indeed say anything at all useful or amusing to others.

And for moderators, they have to ask broadly the same question of their intervention. But for moderators there is also a matter of proportionality and consistency.

Paul, in his finite wisdom suggested that the person to bear in mind in all this is the silent reader, who is interested in the topic. They are not, in my imagination, interested in personal remarks, amusing insults, the pronouncements of thoughtless ignorance, and so on.

But the point is, one cannot simply accept some formula, one has to keep questioning oneself, Am I making a contribution, or am I just being irritating. One has to examine this carefully, because, and I hope this is a case, sometimes being irritating is a valuable contribution.

I'll shut up now, having hopefully irritated almost everyone.

And for moderators, they have to ask broadly the same question of their intervention. But for moderators there is also a matter of proportionality and consistency. — unenlightened

Isn't that what we're already doing, and what @Baden did before he decided to delete those posts? You just disagree with the decision he made. But then someone is going to object to most every decision. That's just life.

We agree on the moderating decision except for the timing (right?). I understand your concerns and I think I already made it clear I didn't intend to spoil your discussion. I didn't know you wanted to do an exegesis of the other thread at the time. Oh, and when I said that everyone knows what a shit storm looks like I wasn't belittling your efforts. Everyone does know what one looks like, in general, but that doesn't mean picking one apart couldn't be enlightening.

The subject is governance. The feedback I am giving is that the governance of the forum, like the governance of many places in the world is failing. I notice that people are confused about the subject, are tending on one side to hasty reactions, and on the other to hasty dismissals. — unenlightened

I agree, I find the amount of "loose talk" is increasing. Being a serious philosopher, I think loose talk is garbage and detrimental to the site.

My wish for the forum is that it should be more interesting and readable, and more significant than the comments section of a youtube video. This requires governance, it doesn't happen on its own. Such governance needs to be in the interests of, and acceptable to, the averagely interesting and readable contributor. (excuse me for stating the blindingly obvious, but in the circumstances it seems I need to start from first principles). — unenlightened

Again, I agree, as much as I have always been one to buck the authorities, I've come to realize that governance is necessary.

The problem, then, is how to raise the tone of debate, how to prevent good posters from being discouraged and silenced, how to maximise freedom, given that laisse faire does not lead to the desired result, but to the degeneration of the site. So this means we have to reach some sort of consensus about what makes a good post and what makes a bad post, and this is not all that easy, because, as I pointed out above, someone can honestly think that this discussion is fruitless, and they might be right, so I ought to at least consider it. — unenlightened

I don't believe that this discussion must necessarily be fruitless. I believe that it is one which must be had, but since it goes to the deepest philosophical levels, it may end up being fruitless, as many such discussion are. Ironically this is the topic of some of those deleted posts. Agustino claimed that the way to bring out the goodness in people is to religiously enact laws of governance and oppress them with authoritarian forces, making them into moral individuals. I claimed that this only drives them away from your reliion, and the only true way to bring out the good in people is to culture the desire to be good.

Now one of those issues, which has come up here as well, is 'just ignore it'. Well, no. We have been doing that and so have the moderators, and it does not go away, but proliferates. Engage, ignore, report, moderate, withdraw. there is I think no clear rule to be made as to what is best to do in every circumstance, But I am quite sure that ignore as a general policy does not work. — unenlightened

Obviously then, what is needed is a balance. This is because each individual is different. Some individuals just need to be encouraged to do what is good, and having that desire, they will do so, so long as they are not interfered with. Others have no such desire. They cannot be "cultured" to bring about such a desire because this is a long term principle which must be applied at childhood. These people must be dealt with in an authoritarian way. At the ripe old age of most posters, it is impossible to change their personality, so moderators are really forced with the issue of judging character.

But the point is, one cannot simply accept some formula, one has to keep questioning oneself, Am I making a contribution, or am I just being irritating. One has to examine this carefully, because, and I hope this is a case, sometimes being irritating is a valuable contribution. — unenlightened

Finally, it is quite evident that most likely, some participants are incapable of making such judgements, as am I being irritating, of themselves. How can I ask myself am I being irritating when I have no regard for what irritates another. Furthermore, and this is the real problem, there are some members of society who have an innate desire to be irritating. It's that childish emotion, which was never overcome in maturation, of wanting to be the centre of attention. And this may incline one to stir the shit pot, create the shit storm, all for the sake of naught.

That's the issue which I believe must be dealt with, intentional disrespect. It's very difficult too, because you mentioned humour, and it usually first appears as humour. There it lies substantially undetected disguised, where it festers, then it explodes when poked. I think that the use of humour in a site like this should be thoroughly examined, and perhaps limited to particular threads where it might be encouraged. Sure, proper use may lighten things up, and provide brief amusement, but one can never be sure of what lies underneath, and the negatives may outweigh the positives. In general, I think that in philosophical discussion there is no real need for humour, and it might be deletable as a matter of principle.

The problem is that you're all dirty pagans, praying to nemesis. Everyone is a debater, everyone is entrenched (even I am *gasp*) -- and we're all at a safe distance. Combine that with the fact that we're all too often interested in the invisible audience member, so that our interlocutor can be the butt of jokes, ridicule, and the proof of our greatness.

There's also the problem of a bunch of 14 year old trolls holding real political sway. Things like pizzagate, and "the punching game" things I've heard expressed by people that take them very seriously, and make them more sympathetic fear and hate mongering. "Triggered" is the new big catch phrase for upsetting people. People talk about a lack of "freedom of speech" when censorship has never been as lax, and it has never before been as easy to get your voice out there to a wide number and range of people internationally.

It's really easy to start to become disrespectful. It's really easy to become more concerned with the imaginary audience than the person your actually talking to, and it's really easy to think your sides got it all figured and everyone that disagrees are wrong in horrible ways.

We do want interesting, engaging, thought provoking material, but what that is for me is not what it is for everyone else, and making it this way for the "audience" can only really be making it this way for me.

Everyone's got a magic cheat code, that if you press the buttons in the right order, you'll invoke their ire... so if we want less of that, then we should attempt to not do it to others, nor express it in ourselves. Not that anger, or nemesis is an evil goddess, but if our times are marked by an excess of her presence, then perhaps it would be good to operate as a counter balance.

There also the thing that we're entertaining ourselves here, so that we may find it more objectionable for someone that isn't as entertaining to be annoying or obnoxious than when it's someone we find entertaining, so that we're ready to forgive them, and punish the bore. This is fine, if that's what you're doing, but then what's important is how entertaining you are, not how disruptive, or civil. At the very least, it's a definite factor. Volume is significant here. Too much of a good thing makes it less good, and even bad things can be good in small doses.

I watched the video when it was first posted in the shout box before the removal, t'was alright. Was that beard comment removed though? That was great.

My preference is to ignore it until it goes away. That usually works for me... well... until they find me...

if you press the buttons in the right order, you'll invoke their ire...

...My preference is to ignore it until it goes away. — Wosret

Is it really possible to ignore that thing which invokes your ire? If it were, then how would it invoke your ire?

Isn't that what we're already doing, and what Baden did before he decided to delete those posts? You just disagree with the decision he made. But then someone is going to object to most every decision. That's just life. — Michael

I don't disagree with that decision, as I have already said. And since the decision was made after I started this thread, it is not the case that "we're already doing" it. It is also not the case that this thread is just my disagreeing with a decision. But apart from that, I entirely agree - it is indeed life.

Perhaps I should have emphasised above where you quoted me that not responding, and not intervening should also be questioned, and at the moment rather more so. I do know that moderators always get stick, and it requires some resilience to look at oneself squarely and decide whether the stick in each case is merited.

We agree on the moderating decision except for the timing (right?). — Baden

Right. It kind of derailed this discussion a bit, and also made it look like a narrow personal campaign, which it isn't. But let's move on.

I find the amount of "loose talk" is increasing. Being a serious philosopher, I think loose talk is garbage and detrimental to the site. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks MU for actually engaging at last, and for some words of support. It's not just the delusions of my age addled brain, then. I think part of the problem is that the site is growing, and the informality that worked fine with members of the old forum, who knew each other, the form, and the boundaries from experience, does not work so well when there are many new members. One can take abuse from one's friends that one finds offensive coming from a stranger. It follows that now there are more strangers, even friends need to be more polite, to set the tone.

Finally, it is quite evident that most likely, some participants are incapable of making such judgements, as am I being irritating, of themselves. How can I ask myself am I being irritating when I have no regard for what irritates another. Furthermore, and this is the real problem, there are some members of society who have an innate desire to be irritating. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the end, or perhaps quite near the beginning, there are those that need to be got rid of. But most people learn from the environment. Having one's pearls cast away is a sobering experience, and most people will anyway adjust their tone to conform as best they can to what is going on around them. So the more one is intolerant of bad behaviour, the less one will see it. And unfortunately, vice versa.

We do want interesting, engaging, thought provoking material, but what that is for me is not what it is for everyone else, and making it this way for the "audience" can only really be making it this way for me. — Wosret

Yes. It is necessarily an act of empathic imagination, but actually not only that. Because I can ask you what you find engaging and thought provoking, and what you find button pressing and off-putting. And while tastes and tolerances and empathy vary widely, there is, I think, a wide (not universal) consensus, despite the protestations here-above, about what we want to see more of and what we want to see less of.

Is it really possible to ignore that thing which invokes your ire? If it were, then how would it invoke your ire? — Metaphysician Undercover

It is really possible, but it requires practice. A large part of ignoring ire-provoking people, places, things, and actions is avoidance. Avoid by thinking about something else. Avoid by registering one's reaction, but not ruminating on it. Avoid by understanding what it is about the thing that is ire-provoking, accepting the uncorrectable reality, and moving on.

This all works best when one is not in a state of intense ire to start with.

So recognize what causes the ire, and prevent it before it builds, because then it's too late. Some people are sensitive, and sometimes it may be just a matter of reading one sentence and it's already too late. How would you know which sentences to avoid? I guess it's a matter of knowing which individuals to avoid. But if certain individuals just make a habit of provoking the ire of others, why not ban them? It's the easiest method of avoidance.

But if certain individuals just make a habit of provoking the ire of others, why not ban them? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, the possibility of being banned is part of the deal when joining a forum like this. So, if some people want to play the role of a demon with a trident and just keep sticking it into people to see them flinch, then ban them back to hell.

Some people are sensitive, and sometimes it may be just a matter of reading one sentence and it's already too late. — Metaphysician Undercover

This I know all to well. In the past (before PF or TPF) I was in a bad state and often experienced a state of really intense ire before I could do anything about it. There are, sadly, quite a few people in this bad state. "Self-help" doesn't always deliver salvation. Major life changes which I didn't engineer gave me new life circumstances which solved my problem.

There are, sadly, quite a few people in this bad state. "Self-help" doesn't always deliver salvation. Major life changes which I didn't engineer gave me new life circumstances which solved my problem. — Bitter Crank

I tend to believe that self-help has a limited success. What is really successful is what you describe, major life changes. And, most often these cannot be engineered because it is far too complex to determine what is needed, and even if that were properly assessed, to bring it about would require a large amount of manipulating others. Even if one could determine the required major life changes to rescue oneself from the "bad state", most I think, would not choose these changes.