From javi:

Err... fine, but I (and possibly others too) don't want to see anything related to him on the main page. It is a waste of time, as is everything that comes from U.S. politics. I guess it would be on the main page for just a few days to let the people know that the old thread is gone. I hope that this is put in The Lounge afterwards.

It bothers me that the name of the orange is the first thing I see when I log in.

From tim wood:

Well done, done well!

Feedback is welcome just not in thread. :-)

@fdrake the deciding factor was my personal annoyance as a person interested in politics but generally really disliking commenting on it as I get dragged down into the mud as well and then upon reflection dislike the thread even more by invoking my baser nature (as it seems to do with many). In addition, there was feedback from another poster on another thread about the deteriorating moderation standards. After mulling it over I decided I agreed with him and wanted to step up and do something about it. It happens to coincide with the change in Social Media use at this site, which by and large received a positive reaction that gave me an extra impulse. It looks like everyone wants better and higher quality and improving moderation and creating a framework for it is an important part of it. After a majority of moderators said to go for it, I did.

@javi2541997 while understandable, we obviously cannot cater to your personal dislike of a person who happens to be relevant at the moment.

@tim wood Glad you like it. Let's hope for a better quality of discussion going forward. I'm going to do my best to moderate stringently and stay out of the discussion itself as much as possible.

ALSO: please help by flagging posts or sending me a PM.

ALSO ALSO: I'm a lazy moderator and will be inclined to delete an entire post in breach of our posting guidelines instead of partial editing unless it's a quality contribution in every other way.

It happens to coincide with the change in Social Media use at this site, which by and large received a positive reaction that gave me an extra impulse. It looks like everyone wants better and higher quality and improving moderation and creating a framework for it is an important part of it. After a majority of moderators said to go for it, I did. — Benkei

Makes sense. Though I find it difficult to argue for this and not also to prohibit climate change denial.

I need to think about it. Reported facts, especially after a few years, tend to cristalize in what we understand is the truth. Almost all news is "wait and see" and then after months or years we are pretty confident on part of the facts.

But much "facts" in climate change literature are outcomes of models. I'm absolutely sympathetic that after model upon model being vindicated by measurements, we have been clearly moving in a direction where climate change denial is not a very rational position. It just seems to me that the denial of what scientifically speaking are still hypotheses and not facts should fundamentally be possible. It's just that when they do it's for shit reasons and other posters waste time pointing out the reasons are shit.

It just seems to me that the denial of what scientifically speaking are still hypotheses and not facts should fundamentally be possible. — Benkei

I think this is an asymmetric burden of evidence. The standards for something being a scientific hypothesis with supporting papers are much higher than facts from the press. We're at a point with climate change where behaving as if climate change is not happening, and if it is happening it's not bad, and if it is bad it has some good sides... is quackery repudiated for decades. Qualitatively the correct conclusions have been known for decades.

Moreover, the quality of discussion in climate change threads is universally low for these reasons, and they can't be kept on topic. Climate change denial is exactly the same flavour of troll discussion great attractor as social media USA Trumpshite, only with decades of evidence and consensus that it's horseshite rather than days - or sometimes minutes - of news.

it's going off topic from this thread. I'm happy to take this further in PM if that's ok with you.

The only option to resolve this is to close the thread forever. At least we weren't compelled to read it unless you searched for the thread because the mods chose to post it on the lounge. I understand your point of "refreshing" the topic and starting again from zero, with the hope of getting things better. But the topic is about a figure that only makes polarisation. A will say X and B will say Y, and they will discuss endlessly. If you are fine with spending a looooot of time deleting posts and warning users, cool.

the deciding factor was my personal annoyance as a person interested in politics but generally really disliking commenting on it as I get dragged down into the mud as well and then upon reflection dislike the thread even more by invoking my baser nature (as it seems to do with many). In addition, there was feedback from another poster on another thread about the deteriorating moderation standards. After mulling it over I decided I agreed with him and wanted to step up and do something about it. It happens to coincide with the change in Social Media use at this site, which by and large received a positive reaction that gave me an extra impulse.

I respect the decision. RIP thread.

But are all threads and posts at risk of your personal annoyance and baser nature? I just wish to know which kinds of spaces, topics of discussion, and conversations we ought to avoid should you get these feelings again, given that other standards are already posted and easy enough to remember.

If you continue reading you'll notice the move was supported by other moderators.your complaint is filed under: can't read, misrepresents or is lazy.

If you are fine with spending a looooot of time deleting posts and warning users, cool. — javi2541997

Not fine but willing to take the responsibility.

If you continue reading you'll notice the move was supported by other moderators.your complaint is filed under: can't read, misrepresents or is lazy.

I fully respect the mods decisions. But the “deciding factor” was your personal annoyance. I’m genuinely curious to see if this is a standard moving forward.

Not fine but willing to take the responsibility. — Benkei

Neat! I can't do anything else than appreciate your efforts in this matter.

It was a deciding factor in me finally making the effort to do something about it. It was never meant to be in the lounge, it started as a politics thread and simply derailed and was then pushed into the lounge to get it off the main page because it made the forum look bad. I'm trying to get it back on track and hopefully at a standard that it makes sense to keep it in the politics category.

Fair explanation, thank you. The move will definitely raise standards and hopefully end the harassment that was regnant there.

Perhaps this is the more suitable thread to discuss this.

I just wonder how an issue like Donald Trump and what he is doing could be, as you said " substantive, evidence-based discussion on Donald Trump, - Here, we aim for clarity, rigour and engagement grounded in fact." Because I assume he will, as he has done all of his political career, raise emotions, a lot of critique. And I hope that those who support him can also have a say.

And I'll just repeat what I said earlier on the new thread:

Just think if we would have this kind of forum in the 1930's, where people anonymously participated from both sides of the Atlantic. Do you think it wouldn't get to repetition and flame wars if people commented about the Great Depression, economic policies to fight the great depression, authoritarianism and rise of Mussolini and Hitler? Or if the topic was the invasion of Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War or isolationism in the US?

It's obviously good to moderate this, yet, I'm sorry to say this, but we are indeed living through quite dramatic times and things really are rapidly changing.

and one does not have to be attracted to one kind of explanation over against another to notice such a change.

Though I find it difficult to argue for this and not also to prohibit climate change denial. — fdrake

Good point.

I think the Trump thread move is great. I’d like to see something similar with climate change. But I’ve argued that already in “New Thread?” to no avail, so I’ll leave it there.

The moderators seem to be making a lot of unnecessary changes to a system that’s worked pretty well so far. Let me see… who else is doing that recently? Politics is specifically identified as one of the categories to be discussed on the forum. Are you moving all the other politics to the lounge? Or only American?

People can do what I do, just avoid the thread.

The quality of the forum is lower than it used to. Instead of leaving I decided to do something about it.

People can do what I do, just avoid the thread. — T Clark

Which demonstrates the problem. You shouldn't be disengaging.

I think that's a good encouragement Benkei. I've been drawn away from the forum due to a rise in low quality and occasionally being baited into engaging with some of it which I often just regret.

But I do think that the problems stems less from stricter rules on how everyone behaves and more about a specific behavior of some that tend to poison discussions. While it's a hard balance to strike, I think it's obvious that some act without regards to facts that are easily looked up. Meaning, most of the engagements that are toxic tend to revolve around people who emotionally just say anything they like without regards for checking if what they say have any basic merits or backing. And when confronted with factual information just dismiss it over and over, repeating their rants ad nauseam.

I don't know what a good fix on that is. While I agree with the other decision to ban social media links, layers of rules that affect everyone could end up just being limiting rather than just double down on the key points that the perpetrators of toxicity fails to follow; mainly avoiding low quality posting; spamming and overuse of biased fallacy-ridden arguments.

Maybe the way to go is to simply make the lounge raise the bar a little bit in order to double down on increasing poster quality? A harsh strong language is still fine, but there has to be some foundation of thought behind things rather than regurgitating echo chamber rhetoric of public spheres.

I have no solutions really, I understand that it's hard to balance all of this and I'm actually impressed that this forum hasn't spiraled into utter chaos seen as the rest of the internet seem to have done so the past couple of years. With the amount of rather loaded topics that a philosophy forum like this gets, I think you mods need to take a moment and give a little praise to each other for managing such a place to not end up in utter chaos.

I just think that the issues at hand stems from a few riding right on the edge of the forum rules.

The quality of the forum is lower than it used to. Instead of leaving I decided to do something about it. — Benkei

To tell the truth, I don't give a ding dong about the Trump thread and I'm only a bit irritated by the social media change. What bothers me is the way you've gone about it. You start a thread telling us you've already made the change and don't intend to remove it. Then, when there is criticism, you say "buzz off fuzz nuts." It doesn't make sense. Don't ask our opinion - it's insulting. Alternatively, ask our opinion before you make the change. Then you can pretend to listen to us before you implement.

In retaliation, I've talked to President Trump and he's going to put a 34% tariff on all posts from the Netherlands.

To tell the truth, I don't give a ding dong about the Trump thread and I'm only a bit irritated by the social media change. What bothers me is the way you've gone about it. You start a thread telling us you've already made the change and don't intend to remove it. Then, when there is criticism, you say "buzz off fuzz nuts." It doesn't make sense. Don't ask our opinion - it's insulting. Alternatively, ask our opinion before you make the change. Then you can pretend to listen to us before you implement. — T Clark

It's not a democracy and I never asked for anyone's opinion.

I informed people about the social media change.

And when people started to give feedback in the new Trump thread, I deleted the comments and created a feedback thread to give room for those comments. As far as I'm aware there's been hardly any criticism since most people here joined because it's a philosophy forum and prefer higher quality over lower quality.

What exactly is the problem then because it's not clear to me other than you thought things were fine. Noted. But I, and other moderators, didn't think things were fine so we started dealing with.

I've been drawn away from the forum due to a rise in low quality — Christoffer

I don't disagree that the quality of the forum has gone down. The first cause I think is that we've lost some heavyweights over the years and other strong posters participate less. I know I make fewer posts and start fewer discussions because I get tired of making the same arguments over and over, even though the subjects still interest me. That's not the forum's fault, but, given that I've solved all the major issues in philosophy, it's hard to stay interested. I only do because I know you all need me.

It's not a democracy and I never asked for anyone's opinion.

I informed people about the social media change. — Benkei

I know it's not a democracy and I don't want it to be, or I might be expected to do more than just complain. But when you open a thread, you're asking for our opinion. Plus, your pugnacious response to criticism is annoying.

I'm all set. You can have the last word.

I just wonder how an issue like Donald Trump and what he is doing could be, as you said " substantive, evidence-based discussion on Donald Trump, - Here, we aim for clarity, rigour and engagement grounded in fact." Because I assume he will, as he has done all of his political career, raise emotions, a lot of critique. And I hope that those who support him can also have a say. — ssu

Sorry, missed this earlier.I think the reality is that much less can be said about the man than we've been doing if there's to be meaningful discussion. I think that's in principle fine.

Plus, your pugnacious response to criticism is annoying. — T Clark

What criticism? Again, your point is not clear at all. Also note that I moved the thread out of the lounge instead of into it. So your first complaint missed the mark. I explained that in more detail in my reply to NOS4A2 before that but maybe you didn't read the comments in thread.

You agree the quality has gone down but also

a system that’s worked pretty well so far — T Clark

?

So which is it?

Then you complain about

the way you've gone about it — T Clark

But you don't want

to do more than just complain — T Clark

Which is precisely what you're doing. So seriously, what do you want?

My two cents worth is that the Trump thread inevitably becomes about venting. There's a certain amount of baloney spouted by people on either side of the issue. It's just the nature of the topic, I think. We don't have an historical vantage point on events, so there's a limit to the depth with which we can analyze it. I'm hoping you ultimately decide to put it back in the lounge.

Folks can learn to behave better in contentious threads, and if higher standards are applied, the threads will change for the better.

My two cents worth is that the Trump thread inevitably becomes about venting. — frank

It is not inevitable, but it takes work and careful thought to prevent it. I applaud the changes being made, and I am going to also try to raise my personal standards to match. And I hope you will also be inspired, @frank to raise your prices to at least a dime. People avoid threads where there is too much vitriol, and that makes the place look worse than it is. And in this case, that suits one side, and hurts the other.

And I hope you will also be inspired, frank to raise your prices to at least a dime — unenlightened

Do you feel like I don't contribute substantially? I'm asking because I'm thinking of just avoiding political discussions going forward. On this forum anyway.