Philosophy Now Forum

It weren't any truffle, marjoram.

Rule 5) There is no Rule 5. (so far)

The guiding metaphor of this forum is that this is a pub, where freewheeling discussion is encouraged but troublemakers are thrown out and the landlord has the final say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pub (We regret that this forum is not licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages).

Referring to the forum rules, I would suggest a rule 5. B.Y.O.B. (Bring your own Booze).

Math notation.

At another website (not math btw), it would let me put in superscripts and subscripts. Are there any plans to expand the math notation here to allow that along with other symbols such as sugma notation and integral signs to make it easier for the readers?

PhilX

That's just great. Now I can glaze over math scribble on a philosophy forum.

Dalek Prime wrote:That's just great. Now I can glaze over math scribble on a philosophy forum.

Since people aren't taught to write anymore (at least in the US), I'm afraid math scribble is the next best thing.

PhilX

Each person that starts a thread ought to be able to veto particular persons from contributing.

This simple rule would thoroughly and universally solve all problems of ad hominem arguments, insults, rudeness, irrelevance and thread wandering nonsense requiring no input from moderators.

The only problem would be how to make the rule work.

Enlarge the memory allocation for avatars.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Each person that starts a thread ought to be able to veto particular persons from contributing.

This simple rule would thoroughly and universally solve all problems of ad hominem arguments, insults, rudeness, irrelevance and thread wandering nonsense requiring no input from moderators.

The only problem would be how to make the rule work.

This is a forum for the exchange of information and ideas, not one of censorship. There's already a ignore list that people give excuses for avoiding.

A better idea is to temporarily suspend posting privileges for a week or two. It's not censorship due to its temporary function as the offender would be allowed back, but would be given a message through a pm as to why he/she was suspended. That would help straighten out the forum.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Each person that starts a thread ought to be able to veto particular persons from contributing.

This simple rule would thoroughly and universally solve all problems of ad hominem arguments, insults, rudeness, irrelevance and thread wandering nonsense requiring no input from moderators.

The only problem would be how to make the rule work.

This is a forum for the exchange of information and ideas, not one of censorship. There's already a ignore list that people give excuses for avoiding.

PhilX

But the ignore function does not stop morons fucking up your thread, does it.
If morons want to say something, no one is stopping them; they can start their own thread.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Enlarge the memory allocation for avatars.

Oh, that'll help a heap...

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Each person that starts a thread ought to be able to veto particular persons from contributing.

This simple rule would thoroughly and universally solve all problems of ad hominem arguments, insults, rudeness, irrelevance and thread wandering nonsense requiring no input from moderators.

The only problem would be how to make the rule work.

This is a forum for the exchange of information and ideas, not one of censorship. There's already a ignore list that people give excuses for avoiding.

PhilX

But the ignore function does not stop morons fucking up your thread, does it.
If morons want to say something, no one is stopping them; they can start their own thread.

As to the certainty that either one is a moron or fucking up a thread, it's actually a matter of perspective. Sometimes it's just a personal vendetta that one labels them as such, or to save face, or to stymie opposition; to not hear what ones ego would rather avoid, because it makes things more complicated for them. A very common human want!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Each person that starts a thread ought to be able to veto particular persons from contributing.

This simple rule would thoroughly and universally solve all problems of ad hominem arguments, insults, rudeness, irrelevance and thread wandering nonsense requiring no input from moderators.

The only problem would be how to make the rule work.

This is a forum for the exchange of information and ideas, not one of censorship. There's already a ignore list that people give excuses for avoiding.

PhilX

But the ignore function does not stop morons fucking up your thread, does it.
If morons want to say something, no one is stopping them; they can start their own thread.

It's ironic you say this as someone else suggested I set up a thread to place all of my threads into which won't work for reasons I already gave. I've also received positive feedback to my threads so that makes up. It's also ironic that the Lounge isn't meant for philosophy, but to loosen up and talk about things nonphilosophical (as we already have a General Philosophy forum for that purpose), yet it seems members get very excited about postings to the Lounge. Then we have a political philosophy forum dominated by the little dictator or Boob who thinks he's a mod and can tell everybody what to do.

Suspension would help and then the more drastic step, banning.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: It's ironic you say this as someone else suggested I set up a thread to place all of my threads into which won't work for reasons I already gave. I've also received positive feedback to my threads so that makes up. It's also ironic that the Lounge isn't meant for philosophy, but to loosen up and talk about things nonphilosophical (as we already have a General Philosophy forum for that purpose), yet it seems members get very excited about postings to the Lounge. Then we have a political philosophy forum dominated by the little dictator or Boob who thinks he's a mod and can tell everybody what to do.

Suspension would help and then the more drastic step, banning.

PhilX

Irony- the idiot who does not want to follow my suggestion on the grounds that it is censorship, suggests BANNING!!

What a joke.

Here's what you need to do.
1) Read stuff carefully
2) ignore who is saying it, and instead chose to THINK about it before you speak.
3) assess the suggestion on its own merits.

My suggestion would be an end to 5 pages of insults that we have had from you and Hex.
I would also mean that when you post a link about a stupid subject, as you do often, you would have to chance to stop me, Boob, and Hex fucking it up for you. You could then give positive feedback to a whole host of other people without fear of unfair attack.

All this would be achievable without censorship; but just by having a veto on contributors to your own threads.

It would end the tyranny of Boob, who tends to fuck up everythread he reads with the same old shite.
What is not to like?

As for the Lounge, you could keep that open to the free-for-all that it represents.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
This is a forum for the exchange of information and ideas, not one of censorship. There's already a ignore list that people give excuses for avoiding.

PhilX

But the ignore function does not stop morons fucking up your thread, does it.
If morons want to say something, no one is stopping them; they can start their own thread.

As to the certainty that either one is a moron or fucking up a thread, it's actually a matter of perspective. Sometimes it's just a personal vendetta that one labels them as such, or to save face, or to stymie opposition; to not hear what ones ego would rather avoid, because it makes things more complicated for them. A very common human want!

So what is not to like?

People who really want a discussion would be able to have one, without fear of a vendetta fucking up the discussion. Those that only wanted to have a free ride would not get many visits and their thread would die.

But it would prevent off-topic discussions, stalking, and insults.

HC said:

"I would also mean that when you post a link about a stupid subject..."

Different people have their own ideas as to what's stupid and isn't with no way of telling beforehand how they're going to react. The articles save me a bunch of typing because they express so well a point of view in most cases. And I'm certain with this crowd that you must have endured name calling, ad homs, etc. instead of staying on-topic. There's a risk involved with any subject and compared with other websites, this one is known for trolling (in fact Hex was banned from OPC undoubtedly for trolling). Let me point out too that some of the "stupid" subjects have gone viral on other websites that goes unrecognized over here. And I have provided many subjects that are clearly debatable which may never be fully settled.

For myself, if I'm insulted by name calling, etc., there will be payback. It's clear that some people here have no interest in philosophy and are just interested in mischief.
I'm about to come back to a subject I touched about before because there's a discussion about this on the internet at this very moment and it involves a piece of classic philosophy. Look for it under ethical theory.

PhilX