General forum:

Back    All discussions

2011-07-05
A suggestion for softening forum moderation (again)
It seems that if a non-pro starts a new thread, and the post is accepted, he/she should be able to post in that thread thereafter without moderation. The non-pro's reply is on the very same topic as his/her already accepted OP (original post). Besides the fact that he/she must have some grasp of the topic, the author of the OP is already invested in the discussion, so I seriously doubt you run the risk of the him/her trolling (posting a bunch of curse words, for example) or doing something else with a bad intention. And if the intention is good, the OP author deserves a reply.

Given that OP authors often reply in their own threads a bunch, the idea has high utility (for moderators as well).

Thank you,
Nathan

2011-07-11
A suggestion for softening forum moderation (again)
Reply to Nathan Jarmie
Sorry -- we're planning to move in the direction of tighter moderation, not looser.  PhilPapers is primarily for professional philosophers, and while we appreciate all the intelligent non-pros we have contributing, there's no question that this has correlated with less participation by pros.  So in the long run we will be moving to a model with more rather than fewer barriers to non-pro posting, though probably with some way (e.g. a dedicated forum or two) to accommodate non-pro participation.
 

2011-08-05
A suggestion for softening forum moderation (again)
Reply to Nathan Jarmie

Ah yes. I hadn't thought of that. In your position I'd ban amateurs form posting in the forum from tomorrow. 

It is a little frustrating though, being able to archive an essay here but not to discuss it, since it would be my venue of choice.   



 


  






2011-08-26
A suggestion for softening forum moderation (again)
Reply to Nathan Jarmie
No one is half as good as a professional philosopher at humiliating people: the reward must be higher than the money they make out of philosophy.

2011-08-26
A suggestion for softening forum moderation (again)
Reply to Nathan Jarmie
Do you think so? Are you sure this isn't hubris? I rather think they ought to be a lot better at it. 










.

2011-08-26
A suggestion for softening forum moderation (again)
Reply to Nathan Jarmie
Though I admit not being in the softest mood today, I haven't tried to post for months. However I do think that power games do bad to philosophy.
 
Look at this security hole: once philosophical ideas have been ruled out of this site by censorship, you (I mean not YOU but the amateur) are free to express yourself here... of course because then there are many chances that your anger will legitimate the censors in their (binary) making of thought history. See: I can say what I want! Be bop a lula!

2011-08-26
A suggestion for softening forum moderation (again)
Reply to Nathan Jarmie
I don't think power games are being played. Professionals are entitled to set up a club to meet and chat on equal terms without a bunch of amateurs running interference. 

As an amateur I have no problem with this. But it would be great if there was a corner somewhere where serious amateurs could chat with any members who feel like slumming it for a while. 

Also, I feel that an amateur should be able to discuss their own work if it's been archived here, and that an exception might be made for single discussion threads linked to specific articles.  

But no complaints. This is a fantastic literature resource however it's organised.