Elitism is what editing is about, which you would know if you were an actual editor and not just a mod working for free. — Jake

I am an actual editor. It's really funny how people keep doing this :D. But no, I don't work for the New York Times.

the content is either going to be getting better and better, or it's going to be getting worse and worse. — Jake

No, it doesn't polarize like that. With consistent standards enforced, the content remains of a consistent standard.

If you can't or won't provide your better commentators a space where they can do their thing together what happens is that they will wander off one by one to be replaced by mediocre commentators, a process which tends to feed on itself and accelerate over time. — Jake

This is another thing that hasn't and doesn't happen. Again, consistent enforcement of standards makes the place consistently attractive to those who appreciate those standards.

I picture three sections of a forum.

1) At the lowest level are those banned because they just don't seem worth investing time in. We can debate particular cases, but this seems sound as a general principle.

2) At the middle level is the forum as it currently exists.

3) At the highest level there could be an invitation only section of the forum which serves as a tangible example of what kind of quality content the mods are aiming for. — Jake

This, even if possible, would result in justified accusations of elitism, impossible-to-refute accusations of favouritism, and general dissatisfaction and strife.

Not knowing that you cannot say what you think on forums like this is hardly the fault of a newcomer. — I like sushi

This site is aimed at adults not children. If someone is ignorant enough to come on a modded forum and think it's OK to call other posters and mods 'fucking retards' etc, they will be given the courtesy of a warning. Beyond that, we won't be offering them the full spa treatment in the hopes that they'll cool down, but simply showing them the door.

Besides, I don't think the circumstances here were particularly mitigating. If they were, a bit more leeway might have been justified. But even then, we don't do temporary bans.

Banned @räthsel for flaming and ignoring warnings to stop doing so.

The guy's a fucking troll, you fucking retard. This site is probably a troll site, thinking about it. Or you think you're hazing me. — räthsel

If you think someone is trolling you, report it by PM and we'll deal with it. Don't abuse them or the mods or you'll be the one banned.

Pffft. Don't take yourself so seriously. I saw a tiny segment as I pointed out above where Peterson got owned and then I made a joke. If Zizek has a tribe (is that the one where everyone has a perpetual cold?) I'm not in it. But he is smarter and more interesting than Peterson as many others are.

"Peterson mopping the floor for his opponent..."

There ya go. All fixed now.

There were plenty of points where Zizek could really have hammered down on Peterson; just look at Zizek's bitch face when Peterson's floundering for examples of 'Post-Modern Neomarxists' — fdrake

This is literally the only part I watched.

"Who are these Marxists?! Name one!"

Peterson's ice cream in the desert look is priceless as his whole cultural Marxism schtick is exposed as the stinking pile of dog dirt it always was. Cue puzzled look at his laptop and tremulous attempts at saving face. Reminds me of when Sarah Palin was asked to name one newspaper she read.

Toasted. And moving on...

[A summary of their debate]. — YuZhonglu

Pretty much exactly as I thought then. Saves me watching it to find out.



:lol:

Double-simulataneouslicitously.

I see I'm fighting a losing rap battle — S

Doubly so, as being stereo-mentalic, we can direct both our disses simultaneously at you.

I diss by Limrik:

There was a young poster called S
An unphilosophical pest
To Pond he was crude
All actin' the dude
'Til Baden did diss him to rest

Ali G, eat your heart out. :grin:

As it happens, I have a degree (Zoology)...And with regard to your earlier complaints about me correcting your language, I have a degree in that too and have taught at universities up to Master's level in the field. -- Baden — Purple Pond

By the way, I apologize to anyone who had to read that arrogant-sounding reveal. It was said in a moment of high irritation with someone I now just blissfully ignore. Anyway, it's obvious my mental gym is better equipped than @S's but @fdrake has us both well covered, methinks.

I can't maintain any coherence past three no matter how I try to mentally organize it. As for auditory impression, I can visualize with or without that but that impression is just a jumbled mess when the strawberry and banana come together at the end of the sentences.

:lol: You win that one.

The main point is we think in stereo whereas @S and co are stuck in boring mono-mentalicity.

Visually, I can do as far as a triple, presuming 'seeing' the sentences counts as thinking them. My auditories, if I'm trying to deliberately create them, seem to cancel each other out.

I imagine we both had the same kind of 'quasi-auditory echo', I don't want to say that I literally experienced sound, or even something like a memory of sound, though it was probably closer to the latter than the former. — fdrake

Maybe, although with a single sentence, visualizing it and hearing it are totally different for me: one is a picture and one is a voice (not mine).

I wasn't experiencing an auditory effect. I was "seeing" both sentences simultaneously in my mind with maybe a quasi-auditory echo of sorts, but certainly not the voices of two different speakers. Might give that a try though and see if I can pull it off.

Funnily enough, I didn't think it was possible until I tried.



I really doubt that's it. Although I don't object to the sentiment. :smile:

No, I can do that too.

And what @S said.

Well, I don't post discussions by choice, so I suppose it's harder for me to relate to why it's so important. But maybe negotiate with jamalrob about it over time.

Anyway, my advice, take a moment, think about it. It might not seem such a big deal then.

You're taking it personally, but we're doing what we always do which is trying to maintain quality. Tbh you could have gotten yourself banned for all the literal gibberish you were posting last week if some of us hadn't been sympathetic to you personally. So, that cuts both ways.

The one that started:

"There's a lot of talks around and about as usual about things."?

If so, I would be of the opinion it should stay where it is. And I'm going to ask you again to put more effort in your OPs and stop posting so many OPs. It doesn't do you or us any good. You're capable of better and we need to maintain standards. Thanks.

Maybe joining people can get a recommendation to participate with 10-20 posts before posting new topics, but are able to post topics that only moderators can see, meaning that if they post a well-composed topic, moderators can unlock it if viewed as properly formatted, otherwise they are free to post new topics after their post-number is over 10-20? — Christoffer

The forum software's not sophisticated enough for that, unfortunately.

It's feedback, where we are as open as possible, but yes, not a bad idea.

Whoever delete my post obviously does not know who I am and where I am involved in. — RoteichArmin

We don't know who anyone is or where they're involved in. Except @Hanover who has been outed as Kim Kardashian's bikini waxer.

Slight overreaction there... But ok, bye.

Look, it's up to you. I think the request to put a little more effort in is reasonable. We do have standards here and they're not all that demanding really. We're not going to delete your OP because of a few grammar mistakes. But content, tone, and formatting matter.

Nope.

Ok, just PM the draft first. Put a little more effort in please. That's all that's being asked.

No, not the execution of the ants. :fire: Hands off that magnifying glass now.

And have a look around at some of the other OPs to see the standard expected. Even if you have a good basic idea, you need to put some effort into the execution.

You can PM me another draft if you like and I'll take a look. Try to clean up the formatting too, please.

Ok, but you need to put that more philosophically for it to work in the philosophical discussions.

Maybe Nobody could rewrite it? — Bitter Crank

I agree. No-one can rewrite it.

Your discussion was deleted due to low quality.

:eyes: :lol:

(Now some dick is going to come along and say it's just as good as Hamlet and opinion and brain state and objective subjective trifle pineapple preference. Or some such.)