Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Welcome to the forum

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by Lacewing » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:31 pm

HC... I like your suggestion about a thread author being able to veto certain people from one's own thread, as there are some unbalanced and self-absorbed leeches and barnacles that seem to continually redirect discussions for their own self-glorifying or deluded agendas. People should not have their topics continually bombarded with that. Seems like the veto process would have to operate on a system of honor, though... and that's the exact shortcoming of the people who would need to honor it.

I also suggest that certain crazy-ass concepts/terms that are talked about obsessively, such as Ouzo and APE could be banned from a topic if there were 5 different member votes to do so (according to AEP, pregnant women could vote for their unborn fetuses as well). Boob brings up these topics, but then refuses to engage in direct discussion about them (and instead refers people off to other sources)... so since he has presented them to the best of his ability by now... it seems time to initiate STFU.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:03 pm

Lacewing wrote:HC... I like your suggestion about a thread author being able to veto certain people from one's own thread, as there are some unbalanced and self-absorbed leeches and barnacles that seem to continually redirect discussions for their own self-glorifying or deluded agendas. People should not have their topics continually bombarded with that. Seems like the veto process would have to operate on a system of honor, though... and that's the exact shortcoming of the people who would need to honor it.

I also suggest that certain crazy-ass concepts/terms that are talked about obsessively, such as Ouzo and APE could be banned from a topic if there were 5 different member votes to do so (according to AEP, pregnant women could vote for their unborn fetuses as well). Boob brings up these topics, but then refuses to engage in direct discussion about them (and instead refers people off to other sources)... so since he has presented them to the best of his ability by now... it seems time to initiate STFU.
I'm not sure you get my idea exactly.

All I am saying is, that if you are the one to start a thread - and ONLY when this is the case, you get to say who is not allowed to post in it.
They would be perfectly free to start their own threads - even ones designed to re-rail yours, and they could ban you from that.
So I do not see where any "honour system" would need apply.

The reason I think this would be a good idea, is because when I have started threads SoB, Boob, and Hex have taken the opportunity to destroy them - not with arguments, but re-railing, off topics, insults and so on. Moderators do nothing. And blocking them only makes them invisible - free to insult without you even seeing it, and still perfectly capable of ruining any serious argument.

This capability would allow self moderation, without any actual censorship.

it would encourage good thread writing and politeness on the part of the thread owner (to keep people in), and on the part of the contributor (to stay on a thread they like).
If the owner banned capriciously then they would end up with an empty thread. So the mechanism would be self balancing.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:03 pm

Lacewing wrote:HC... I like your suggestion about a thread author being able to veto certain people from one's own thread, as there are some unbalanced and self-absorbed leeches and barnacles that seem to continually redirect discussions for their own self-glorifying or deluded agendas. People should not have their topics continually bombarded with that. Seems like the veto process would have to operate on a system of honor, though... and that's the exact shortcoming of the people who would need to honor it.

I also suggest that certain crazy-ass concepts/terms that are talked about obsessively, such as Ouzo and APE could be banned from a topic if there were 5 different member votes to do so (according to AEP, pregnant women could vote for their unborn fetuses as well). Boob brings up these topics, but then refuses to engage in direct discussion about them (and instead refers people off to other sources)... so since he has presented them to the best of his ability by now... it seems time to initiate STFU.
In ones selfishness, it's common indeed to want to shut up another, a very common human ego centric maneuver. To exclude while insinuating that one is superior to another in doing so. One stroking oneself at another's expense. Bob if nothing else teaches one that delusion runs rampant in some peoples minds. A grounding mechanism for the onlookers. Contrast between that which is sound and unsound, so as to delineate the differences. And occasionally when he's not feeling especially feisty, he can make some valid points. Even when he's dead crazy relative to others views, it can strengthen ones reason.

Why some people are so intolerant of others on a philosophy forum just proves they are oblivious to what philosophy is all about. Question everything my friends, especially self, lest one becomes trapped in the pigeon holing of their own creation.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:25 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Lacewing wrote:HC... I like your suggestion about a thread author being able to veto certain people from one's own thread, as there are some unbalanced and self-absorbed leeches and barnacles that seem to continually redirect discussions for their own self-glorifying or deluded agendas. People should not have their topics continually bombarded with that. Seems like the veto process would have to operate on a system of honor, though... and that's the exact shortcoming of the people who would need to honor it.

I also suggest that certain crazy-ass concepts/terms that are talked about obsessively, such as Ouzo and APE could be banned from a topic if there were 5 different member votes to do so (according to AEP, pregnant women could vote for their unborn fetuses as well). Boob brings up these topics, but then refuses to engage in direct discussion about them (and instead refers people off to other sources)... so since he has presented them to the best of his ability by now... it seems time to initiate STFU.
I'm not sure you get my idea exactly.

All I am saying is, that if you are the one to start a thread - and ONLY when this is the case, you get to say who is not allowed to post in it.
They would be perfectly free to start their own threads - even ones designed to re-rail yours, and they could ban you from that.
So I do not see where any "honour system" would need apply.

The reason I think this would be a good idea, is because when I have started threads SoB, Boob, and Hex have taken the opportunity to destroy them - not with arguments, but re-railing, off topics, insults and so on. Moderators do nothing. And blocking them only makes them invisible - free to insult without you even seeing it, and still perfectly capable of ruining any serious argument.

This capability would allow self moderation, without any actual censorship.

it would encourage good thread writing and politeness on the part of the thread owner (to keep people in), and on the part of the contributor (to stay on a thread they like).
If the owner banned capriciously then they would end up with an empty thread. So the mechanism would be self balancing.
Way wrong on my additions, I usually only ever provide evidence of a falsehood that was uttered. So it was the author of the falsehood that derailed the topic, where I only set them straight. Of course I usually speak of ethics, equality and morality, I also smack people in the face for smacking another in the face. And you've initially smacked people in the face on more than one occasion. You my friend are in fact a bad representative for this forum when you have done so. So be a man and take you medicine!

And if you really were a teacher and you treated them as you said you did, then you were one screwed up teacher. Because almost always your twisted arrogance shows through your dialog, but with luck and maybe some hard knocks, you'll quiet down your, me, me, me, attitude, and finally become a man, all inclusive of your brethren, despite their differences!

I'm one of the fairest people you'll ever meet, I include the whole of the earths peoples, despite their ignorance. Which doesn't mean I won't impart some harsh words their way so as to enlighten them, to edify and light their way. Of course I'm not perfect either, after all I am an emotional animal, yet I expect the same correction in return. And would be let down if one did not provide it.

Thank You very much!

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by Lacewing » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:30 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm not sure you get my idea exactly.

All I am saying is, that if you are the one to start a thread - and ONLY when this is the case, you get to say who is not allowed to post in it.
That's what I thought you said... and that's what I thought I was repeating.
Lacewing wrote:I like your suggestion about a thread author being able to veto certain people from one's own thread
Hobbes' Choice wrote:They would be perfectly free to start their own threads - even ones designed to re-rail yours, and they could ban you from that.
Sure.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:So I do not see where any "honour system" would need apply.
Well, how do you make them honor what you say? You can say they are not allowed to post... but how is that enforced? That's why I said they'd have to honor it, and they might not be honorable.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:This capability would allow self moderation, without any actual censorship.

it would encourage good thread writing and politeness on the part of the thread owner (to keep people in), and on the part of the contributor (to stay on a thread they like).
If the owner banned capriciously then they would end up with an empty thread. So the mechanism would be self balancing.
I agree.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: In ones selfishness, it's common indeed to want to shut up another, a very common human ego centric maneuver. To exclude while insinuating that one is superior to another in doing so.
Do you realize we're talking about attaining a BALANCE here? You do like balance, right? We're talking about things being OUT OF BALANCE. And surely you can't accuse me of not making a valiant effort to engage with Bob over and over, seeking the value whether through seriousness or humor. I may continue to engage with Bob in the future... but how is it helpful or fair to allow any posters to continually derail threads with personal agendas? When people are not accustomed to seeking and offering balance, is it not helpful to offer some suggestions for reminding them of its value? It seems like you're shutting down the idea of this as if it is extreme? Yet, you support other extreme and excessive behavior? Are you disagreeing just to disagree?

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:46 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm not sure you get my idea exactly.

All I am saying is, that if you are the one to start a thread - and ONLY when this is the case, you get to say who is not allowed to post in it.
That's what I thought you said... and that's what I thought I was repeating.
Lacewing wrote:I like your suggestion about a thread author being able to veto certain people from one's own thread
Hobbes' Choice wrote:They would be perfectly free to start their own threads - even ones designed to re-rail yours, and they could ban you from that.
Sure.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:So I do not see where any "honour system" would need apply.
Well, how do you make them honor what you say? You can say they are not allowed to post... but how is that enforced? That's why I said they'd have to honor it, and they might not be honorable.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:This capability would allow self moderation, without any actual censorship.

it would encourage good thread writing and politeness on the part of the thread owner (to keep people in), and on the part of the contributor (to stay on a thread they like).
If the owner banned capriciously then they would end up with an empty thread. So the mechanism would be self balancing.
I agree.
How would it work - yes that's the difficulty. It would involve some sort of re-programming to the site. I do not think it would be difficult, as I am sure that some other Forums have similar facilities.
But I doubt Rick would want to pay half a day's fee for a tweak to the site.

But thanks for supporting the idea.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:16 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm not sure you get my idea exactly.

All I am saying is, that if you are the one to start a thread - and ONLY when this is the case, you get to say who is not allowed to post in it.
That's what I thought you said... and that's what I thought I was repeating.
Lacewing wrote:I like your suggestion about a thread author being able to veto certain people from one's own thread
Hobbes' Choice wrote:They would be perfectly free to start their own threads - even ones designed to re-rail yours, and they could ban you from that.
Sure.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:So I do not see where any "honour system" would need apply.
Well, how do you make them honor what you say? You can say they are not allowed to post... but how is that enforced? That's why I said they'd have to honor it, and they might not be honorable.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:This capability would allow self moderation, without any actual censorship.

it would encourage good thread writing and politeness on the part of the thread owner (to keep people in), and on the part of the contributor (to stay on a thread they like).
If the owner banned capriciously then they would end up with an empty thread. So the mechanism would be self balancing.
I agree.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: In ones selfishness, it's common indeed to want to shut up another, a very common human ego centric maneuver. To exclude while insinuating that one is superior to another in doing so.
Do you realize we're talking about attaining a BALANCE here? You do like balance, right? We're talking about things being OUT OF BALANCE. And surely you can't accuse me of not making a valiant effort to engage with Bob over and over, seeking the value whether through seriousness or humor. I may continue to engage with Bob in the future... but how is it helpful or fair to allow any posters to continually derail threads with personal agendas? When people are not accustomed to seeking and offering balance, is it not helpful to offer some suggestions for reminding them of its value? It seems like you're shutting down the idea of this as if it is extreme? Yet, you support other extreme and excessive behavior? Are you disagreeing just to disagree?
Lacewing, I have absolutely nothing against you at all. Seriously! Up till now, what you have written I've believed was pretty damn good. That you're pretty even keeled in you responses! Pretty damn fair! And Bob really can get on my nerves, GOD, you don't know how long I've had to put up with him. Look at both my and his forum join date to get a clue. Shit at one point in time he actually followed me around, continually spouting some religious dogma about my tribulations, just to derail. I had him on ignore for quite some time, actually he has the record for being on my ignore list. BUT I've been on the Internet since it's inception, long enough to actually remember the Blue Ribbon Campaign. Which was all about the freedom of ones speech. One of it's creators, a very respected man in that time, said that:

'one doesn't truly believe in freedom of speech, until they stand up and fight for their worst enemy's right to speak freely'

And that means that one can't shut up another because they rub them the wrong way, that it is in fact a slippery slope you've placed yourself on, when you attempt to shut one another, as guess who's next, yes, You Are! It's either all or nothing as to free speech, and who the hell wants nothing? So all it is, anything else is surely selfish and not Balanced! Let the fools speak so by contrast you appear smarter. Learn a lesson from them, thats what every bit of information is for, every bit can inform us either to the positive or the negative. Best to keep you friends close, and your enemy's even closer. I could go on and on and on. But the truth is, the world needs everyone to be ALL INCLUSIVE, as then there shall be no wars of any real significance!

Either ignore him as I once did, or deal with him. I don't see a real problem except for ones selfishness! Let others be the selfish ones while you be the shinning example of acceptance, so as to be that forse that would attempt to change the world for the better!!!!!

xoxoxoxoxoxo <-- those are kisses and hugs for you, my adversary on this particular note, on the cheeks of course. ;) Because I truly believe that lacewing deserves it. Let others be the haters, a victim of their particular form of ignorance.

Surely people that have no real understanding of another, excludes them. They are oblivious of human psychology, and that of determinism, which is in fact the reason for our differences, environment. Such that people like Bob are probably not really responsible for their insanity, crap he may have been locked in a closet as a child, which is why he's so nuts. Believing he was a prophet, the only thing that kept him sane for all we know! And yet you would also be as was his captor with his exclusion.

You a nurturing female, really? Is that what you really aspire to be? What if your child was born mentally handicapped?

HC, secretly inside, might despise his brother, for all the tiptoeing around him that he had to do, so as to cope during his childhood. Not that it's a fact, how could I know that it's necessarily true in his case, but psychology shows us that this has indeed been the case in some families. Which could be why he can't handle Me, Bob or Hex. He's had enough challenges in his life. Sorry for him that he's thrown in the towel and given up on others. But in truth, if that be his case, I'd understand him having problems with me.

Isn't that the trick with wisdom? To understand instead of excluding that which you don't understand? Sounds like a life of running and hiding to me!
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by Lacewing » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:12 pm

SpheresOfBalance... Okay, okay, I get it! :D Good points.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Bob really can get on my nerves, GOD, you don't know how long I've had to put up with him. Look at both my and his forum join date to get a clue.
This made me laugh out loud.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:'one doesn't truly believe in freedom of speech, until they stand up and fight for their worst enemy's right to speak freely'
Well, I can certainly appreciate the spirit of that. I just wonder... "anywhere or anytime or relentlessly?" Like the Westboro Baptist Church people? How do we protect ourselves from the rules that protect the maniacs? Do we all retreat and become hermits?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:the truth is, the world needs everyone to be ALL INCLUSIVE, as then there shall be no wars of any real significance!
Wouldn't that be wonderful? Yes, there is a part of me that truly loves everyone. Even those I don't want to talk to or hang out with.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Either ignore him as I once did, or deal with him.
Right. Like I ignore Gustav and Inglorious. I guess the difference with Blob is that he seems rather tragic, and I wish I could get through to him somehow. He doesn't seem dark and manipulative... just annoyingly obsessive. At least it can be fun at times to interact with him.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Let others be the selfish ones while you be the shinning example of acceptance, so as to be that forse that would attempt to change the world for the better!!!!!
Hee hee. Surely all of my cursing and insults have ruined my chance to be a shining example -- but I do try to be authentic and have a good time, which I hope demonstrates something of value.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: xoxoxoxoxoxo <-- those are kisses and hugs for you, my adversary on this particular note, on the cheeks of course. ;) Because I truly believe that lacewing deserves it.
Oh now that's just the SWEETEST thing to hear! Thank you kind sir! I'm glad you can see more to me than just another wild wingnut (of which I surely am to some degree).
SpheresOfBalance wrote:people like Bob are probably not really responsible for their insanity, crap he may have been locked in a closet as a child, which is why he's so nuts. Believing he was a prophet, the only thing that kept him sane for all we know!
You're right.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And yet you would also be as was his captor with his exclusion.

You a nurturing female, really? Is that what you really aspire to be? What if your child was born retarded?
Oh, now I feel terrible. I'm sorry Blob, please forgive me. Come here and I'll give you a squeeze. :wink:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Isn't that the trick with wisdom? To understand instead of excluding that which you don't understand?
Well now that I'm feeling all warm and glowy, everything is beautiful and making more sense. So yes, I agree! I'd rather understand than exclude. But I still have no interest in talking to Gustav or Inglorious, and that's not exclusion... it's just wise discernment. :D

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:45 pm

Lacewing wrote:SpheresOfBalance... Okay, okay, I get it! :D Good points.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Bob really can get on my nerves, GOD, you don't know how long I've had to put up with him. Look at both my and his forum join date to get a clue.
This made me laugh out loud.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:'one doesn't truly believe in freedom of speech, until they stand up and fight for their worst enemy's right to speak freely'
Well, I can certainly appreciate the spirit of that. I just wonder... "anywhere or anytime or relentlessly?" Like the Westboro Baptist Church people? How do we protect ourselves from the rules that protect the maniacs? Do we all retreat and become hermits?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:the truth is, the world needs everyone to be ALL INCLUSIVE, as then there shall be no wars of any real significance!
Wouldn't that be wonderful? Yes, there is a part of me that truly loves everyone. Even those I don't want to talk to or hang out with.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Either ignore him as I once did, or deal with him.
Right. Like I ignore Gustav and Inglorious. I guess the difference with Blob is that he seems rather tragic, and I wish I could get through to him somehow. He doesn't seem dark and manipulative... just annoyingly obsessive. At least it can be fun at times to interact with him.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Let others be the selfish ones while you be the shinning example of acceptance, so as to be that forse that would attempt to change the world for the better!!!!!
Hee hee. Surely all of my cursing and insults have ruined my chance to be a shining example -- but I do try to be authentic and have a good time, which I hope demonstrates something of value.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: xoxoxoxoxoxo <-- those are kisses and hugs for you, my adversary on this particular note, on the cheeks of course. ;) Because I truly believe that lacewing deserves it.
Oh now that's just the SWEETEST thing to hear! Thank you kind sir! I'm glad you can see more to me than just another wild wingnut (of which I surely am to some degree).
SpheresOfBalance wrote:people like Bob are probably not really responsible for their insanity, crap he may have been locked in a closet as a child, which is why he's so nuts. Believing he was a prophet, the only thing that kept him sane for all we know!
You're right.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:And yet you would also be as was his captor with his exclusion.

You a nurturing female, really? Is that what you really aspire to be? What if your child was born retarded?
Oh, now I feel terrible. I'm sorry Blob, please forgive me. Come here and I'll give you a squeeze. :wink:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Isn't that the trick with wisdom? To understand instead of excluding that which you don't understand?
Well now that I'm feeling all warm and glowy, everything is beautiful and making more sense. So yes, I agree! I'd rather understand than exclude. But I still have no interest in talking to Gustav or Inglorious, and that's not exclusion... it's just wise discernment. :D
And I don't blame you, I ignored Bob until such time that I felt that I could deal with him. That took quite a long while! ;) But I 'learned,' and now he doesn't bother me as much as I feel sorry for him. But on occasion he can be rather sharp, really!! He has come up with a few valid points, and I don't mean in putting someone down either, like his knock philx thread. I don't like that crap either, though I do poke at some people sometimes, I'm working on it. ;) I would never want anyone to be banned unless like in the earlier days of the forum, they had threatened someones life! That is intolerable!

This is a philosophy forum, and should be open to anyone that cares about philosophy, and I believe that philosophy demands it! The love of knowledge, yes even the knowledge of the seemingly deranged, can 'help' to open ones eyes.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by Lacewing » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:59 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: The love of knowledge, yes even the knowledge of the seemingly deranged, can 'help' to open ones eyes.
Yes. We learn from all of it: the experiences of excesses and ego and rudeness and density and empathy and understanding and expansion and self-mastery. We can see more about what we're all capable of, which can give us more clarity/potential in what we choose.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:52 pm

Lacewing wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: The love of knowledge, yes even the knowledge of the seemingly deranged, can 'help' to open ones eyes.
Yes. We learn from all of it: the experiences of excesses and ego and rudeness and density and empathy and understanding and expansion and self-mastery. We can see more about what we're all capable of, which can give us more clarity/potential in what we choose.
I believe you did a wonderful job here, I agree 100%, because I'm working on all of them. ;)

RickLewis
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by RickLewis » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:52 pm

I know I don't post here often enough, but believe it or not I do find this thread useful as a suggestions box for Philosophy Now Forum, and I come here from time to time to mull over the suggestions that people have kindly posted.

For this reason, and to preserve this as a suggestions box, I am going to delete the various insult-peppered flame-war style posts which have started to appear in this thread recently. This isn't a general discussion thread anyway - it is just a suggestions box.

Please keep the suggestions coming. (Polite ones, or if not polite then at least physically possible.)

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by marjoram_blues » Tue Nov 17, 2015 2:46 pm

RickLewis wrote:I know I don't post here often enough, but believe it or not I do find this thread useful as a suggestions box for Philosophy Now Forum, and I come here from time to time to mull over the suggestions that people have kindly posted.

For this reason, and to preserve this as a suggestions box, I am going to delete the various insult-peppered flame-war style posts which have started to appear in this thread recently. This isn't a general discussion thread anyway - it is just a suggestions box.

Please keep the suggestions coming. (Polite ones, or if not polite then at least physically possible.)
Why don't you take a good look at this forum. Imagine you are an interested newcomer to philosophy. As an introduction, it's a disgrace. I believe you made a promise, some time ago. Something about a renovation ?

RickLewis
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by RickLewis » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:29 pm

marjoram_blues wrote: Why don't you take a good look at this forum. Imagine you are an interested newcomer to philosophy. As an introduction, it's a disgrace. I believe you made a promise, some time ago. Something about a renovation ?
Doesn't ring a bell. Can you provide a link, please? I'm not saying you are wrong - only that I have no recollection of any unfulfilled promise of action regarding the forum.

The forum is a mixed bag. There are frequently nonsense threads. There is occasionally abuse. On the whole, though, it is a far, far better place than it was about two or three years ago. There is often well-informed and interesting philosophical discussion, most of it taking place in the specialised topic areas or in the section devoted to discussion of Philosophy Now articles rather than in the Lounge or General Philosophical Discussion areas. The Mods stop anything that gets too too crazy or offensive. While there is plenty of room for improvement, I don't believe it is as bad as you make out.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

Post by marjoram_blues » Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:03 pm

RickLewis wrote:
marjoram_blues wrote: Why don't you take a good look at this forum. Imagine you are an interested newcomer to philosophy. As an introduction, it's a disgrace. I believe you made a promise, some time ago. Something about a renovation ?
Doesn't ring a bell. Can you provide a link, please? I'm not saying you are wrong - only that I have no recollection of any unfulfilled promise of action regarding the forum.

The forum is a mixed bag. There are frequently nonsense threads. There is occasionally abuse. On the whole, though, it is a far, far better place than it was about two or three years ago. There is often well-informed and interesting philosophical discussion, most of it taking place in the specialised topic areas or in the section devoted to discussion of Philosophy Now articles rather than in the Lounge or General Philosophical Discussion areas. The Mods stop anything that gets too too crazy or offensive. While there is plenty of room for improvement, I don't believe it is as bad as you make out.
I can't find the thread which you say you can't remember. Perhaps deleted ?
A restructuring of the forum was planned, whenever you would have the time.

As an exercise in imagination as to what could give a better impression to a newcomer, forget you are Rick Lewis, the proprietor.

Now start reading the 'About this forum' subforum. From top to bottom.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests