Thanks for quick reply and clarification. Appreciated, as always.
Whatever you do with your new time, enjoy the day. Take care. Be well. :sparkle: :flower:
Reply to fdrake I see from your location on your info page you have followed Yogi's advice and have taken the fork in the road. Sorry to see the only moderator who is a mathematician leave that position. Fair sailing.
Can you grant preemptive pardons to your favorite members as part of your last moderator actions?
javi2541997February 14, 2025 at 06:07#9683110 likes
Honestly, being a mod in TPF could be one of the hardest tasks to do. It is not always easy to track the endless chat in each thread; furthermore, regarding those threads that are mainly political, it is complex to find out a balance on both sides of the debate. I was never asked to be a mod, and I am lucky because I think I will not be up to the required standards. So, I appreciate the job done by fdrake and the current mod job by the rest of the team.
unenlightenedFebruary 14, 2025 at 09:08#9683340 likes
There ought to be a special section for retired staff to complain about how things have gone downhill, and there are no proper discussions any more, and the mods don't seem to care, etc. Enjoy your dotage @fdrake. And thanks for all the fish.
There ought to be a special section for retired staff to complain about how things have gone downhill, and there are no proper discussions any more, and the mods don't seem to care, etc.
There is. It's called 'Feedback'. I doubt any mods, present, past or future would use it to complain.
There would seem to be an element of loyalty and need for privacy in airing 'what is really going on'.
Some will share in PMs. Or in other places. Or not at all.
The job is time-consuming and messy. It takes a certain kind of person to do it well.
Sometimes, we get to see timely interventions. Other times, not so much. Work is behind the scenes, not recognised and not given enough appreciation.
As you know, the messiness comes in degrees and cycles.
Lately, there seems to have been an increase in reporting to mods.
There comes a point when some say, "Enough is enough!".
It must take its toll on those who have been dedicated to the site for 10yrs...
I couldn't do it for 5 minutes.
Time and health are precious. Best wishes to all who make the choice to move on.
:heart: :flower: :pray:
It is not always easy to track the endless chat in each thread; furthermore, regarding those threads that are mainly political, it is complex to find out a balance on both sides of the debate. I
The job is time-consuming and messy. It takes a certain kind of person to do it well.
Sometimes, we get to see timely interventions. Other times, not so much. Work is behind the scenes, not recognised and not given enough appreciation.
I agree Amity.
It is true that a mod's job is behind the scenes, and it is not always recognised. I even remember some bleak members who tried to make the ambience even worse, and they confronted the mods.
I will be honest: I also did one or a few tantrums. I didn't like when some threads were put in The Lounge, my endless discussions with universeness, or how I personally take the short story contest. I know I am not an easy fella. I appreciate the generous behaviour they always had, and I am aware that banning a member is not easy.
Reply to fdrake Hope to see you more often in the forum for discussions. Good luck & cheers.
javi2541997February 14, 2025 at 14:13#9684120 likes
Reply to Arcane Sandwich I didn't know that. Perhaps someone who wants to help with moderating should ask the admins. But I can't see myself in such a plight. It is just that Javi is made for writing nursery rhymes, not moderating discussions. :sweat:
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 14:17#9684140 likes
Reply to javi2541997 Well, you could moderate the poetry section, if you wanted to, and if you formally made that request, I would imagine. Customarily, forum administrators don't ask users if they want to be mods or admins. I'm not saying that it can't happen, or that it never happened, I'm sure it has happened in other forums. It's just not customary to proceed like that. Usually, whoever wishes to do unpaid, volunteer work as a mod (because that is indeed what it is), has to make the request. But, like I said, maybe things are different in The Philosophy Forum, I don't know. : )
javi2541997February 14, 2025 at 14:37#9684260 likes
I admit that I lose my control often, and I am biased on explicit topics. For example: I can't see myself as a good mod in Gaza thread because I root for Palestinian people, and I am not very fond of Israel.
A mod should act as we expect from judges: objectively.
It's mostly just corralling frustrated people to disagree with each other without being total arses. Amusingly I could submit the command to remove my own admin privileges, so I did so.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 14:40#9684290 likes
?Arcane Sandwich
But first I should ask myself: who am I to moderate you?
Well, I'd say that you're my friend, if there's such a thing as Internet friendships. So, I have already given you the right to moderate me, informally at least.
For example: I can't see myself as a good mod in Gaza thread because I root for Palestinian people, and I am not very fond of Israel.
Not every moderator has to moderate every single topic of discussion. Maybe your talents and knowledge are better suited to moderate topics in Philosophy of Art, for example. You don't have to moderate political topics if you don't want to.
And you're probably already aware of this, but how literal and direct your interpretations of other people's posts are can come off as acerbic. If someone doesn't have a frame of reference for your social style anyway. That isn't just a you thing. People can interpret you being direct, literal and detail focussed as disrespectful and then escalate what they perceive as a conflict.
I'm not even sure you can do anything about it anyway, it's just something to be mindful of.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 15:04#9684450 likes
Reply to fdrake Yes, it's a very smart observation, the one that you're making. And it's also good advice. I'm not sure that I agree with the following part, though:
I'm not even sure you can do anything about it anyway, it's just something to be mindful of.
That sounds a bit defeatist to my ear.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 15:09#9684480 likes
Drake, [s]can I share an article with you, here? It's an article from a magazine called Popular Mechanics. The title is "Wrap Your Head Around the Enormity of the Number TREE(3)".[/s]
I'd be interesting in known your opinion about these gargantuan numbers. Or, scratch that, can I please ask you what you think about them? Forget the article. What do you think of Graham's Number, for example?
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 15:20#9684610 likes
Reply to fdrake I mean, you can write "Graham's Number", I just did that. You can even remove the scare quotes, like so: Graham's Number. But my point is that this isn't Graham's Number itself. Graham's Number Itself requires, by definition, an amount of matter to even write it as a numeral, that there is not enough matter in the universe to do that. I mean, consider the series of single-digit integers:
The set of the series of single-digit integers = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
If you (or anyone else) wants to write Graham's Number, or TREE(3), using the set defined above, then there's not enough matter in the universe to do that.
That's why we simply call them "Graham's Number", or "TREE(3)".
Do you agree or disagree with me on that, Drake? It has nothing to do with skill. Right?
Well, I'd say that you're my friend, if there's such a thing as Internet friendships. So, I have already given you the right to moderate me, informally at least.
I consider you as my friend too. But I don't want to act like I am a shepherd and you my loyal mastiff.
Not really. I have seen some folks who control themselves and know to ensure eclectic positions in different topics. @Count Timothy von Icarus is a good example, and his appointment as moderator was a very good decision by the forum.
Not every moderator has to moderate every single topic of discussion. Maybe your talents and knowledge are better suited to moderate topics in Philosophy of Art, for example. You don't have to moderate political topics if you don't want to.
That's interesting.
I don't know if you already notice that there is a short story contest once a year. The previous contests were based on a system of poll voting, but readers were not forced to read and leave feedback. Thus, explaining why they gave a 2 instead of 5, for example. I disagreed with this, and I remember putting a lot of effort into supervising that each author had the feedback they deserved, but I ended up mentally exhausted. My aim was just to keep the contest up on an optimal level. I care a lot about the contest, but caring is not the only important feature. If I take personally the way some folks treat the short stories or the contest itself, I couldn't be a good mod because my attitude is obviously biased.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 15:28#9684680 likes
I ended up mentally exhausted. My aim was just to keep the contest up on an optimal level. I care a lot about the contest, but caring is not the only important feature. If I take personally the way some folks treat the short stories or the contest itself, I couldn't be a good mod because my attitude is obviously biased.
Right, so maybe Philosophy of Art is not the best topic for you to moderate, then. Have you considered moderating Philosophy of Religion? Maybe your skills and talents and knowledge would be better suited for moderating that general topic.
Please let me stop you right there, Drake. There is no such thing as "the true form of the shitpost". Why? Because "shitposts" (whatever that means) do not have a "form" (whatever that means).
Philosophy of Religion? An interesting topic, indeed. But my knowledge doesn't go beyond Kierkegaard or Hegel. Very basic. That's why I appreciate the guts of those who volunteer to moderate!
?Arcane Sandwich
I have never thought of being a moderator on anything.
Well, if you want to be a moderator, you have to think about it! You can't just wait for the admins of a forum to approach you and say "hey javi, wanna take time our of your weekly schedule to work for free as a forum moderator?" It's like, they can't ask you to do that. Not because it's unlawful (it isn't) or illegal (it isn't), but rather because it's not polite. It's not polite to ask people to work for free. That's why you have to volunteer. And, arguably, for legal reasons, you have to do it explicitly. Stated differently, you make an explicit request.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 15:43#9684810 likes
Philosophy of Religion? An interesting topic, indeed. But my knowledge doesn't go beyond Kierkegaard or Hegel. Very basic. That's why I appreciate the guts of those who volunteer to moderate!
Yeah, maybe.
javi2541997February 14, 2025 at 15:47#9684870 likes
True, but that must not surprise anyone since volunteering is already a free task. So, I don't see why it would not be polite to ask for doing it for free. We are talking about volunteers, not bankers. :rofl:
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 15:56#9684890 likes
We are talking about volunteers, not bankers. :rofl:
Javi, I consider you a friend. So, please let me give you some advice: that joke that you just made there, could get you killed IRL. Not by me, obviously. But, if you made that joke in New York City, to an Italian, you might get killed. I should know, part of my heritage is Italian.
I'm not trying to scare you, Javi. I'm just giving you some advice. Italians won't take it easy on you just because you're Spanish.
Trust Me Bro.
javi2541997February 14, 2025 at 15:59#9684920 likes
Reply to Arcane Sandwich I'm not sure why, but I'm afraid now. See? Moderation is riskier than we imagined.
Mikie was just one long stream of verbal abuse. There wasn't even any philosophy in it. Just abuse. You defended her every step of the way. Why did you do that?
The majority of @Mikie's posts that you were talking about, I believe, were directed toward people who he believed - reasonably - were supporting genocide, the thorough subversion of democracy, and the annihilation of the human race. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to be civil about such things.
The majority of Mikie's posts that you were talking about, I believe, were directed toward people who he believed - reasonably - were supporting genocide, the thorough subversion of democracy, and the annihilation of the human race. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to be civil about such things.
And you really believe this is what was happening?
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 19:52#9686660 likes
Reply to fdrake
Dude. She was abusive to everybody every single day.
javi2541997February 14, 2025 at 19:54#9686710 likes
Reply to frank Sorry to step in. As I discussed before with Reply to Arcane Sandwich being a moderator is not easy. I respect that you perhaps experienced things you did not like, yet it is not the time to exploit the situation. We can't just reduce fdrake's commitment to your negative experience with Mikie. We all deserve a broadly based assessment. It is not fair to point out one thing you disliked when his compromise lasted nearly ten years.
The fact that you kept a member who not only is often abusive (but of course excuses himself for) but, worse, reduces the forum to Twitter-level content for years shows how tolerant and level-headed you were. Thats my goodbye message.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 14, 2025 at 20:02#9686810 likes
javi2541997February 14, 2025 at 20:07#9686930 likes
Mates, this has to be a farewell to fdrake; not your personal notebook where you write all the things you didn't like in the past. What is the point of being a killjoy? :roll:
I'm fond of him, but I think he thinks he's more rigorous than he is. If you read his use of mathematics as examples of "his master" Lacan's mathemes, they make some amount of sense. Cosmogenesis {not that it's exactly cosmogenesis but whatever} out of the empty set doesn't make too much sense. The universe being equated with lack of set level concept applicable to the set of all sets doesn't make much sense either.
I never found a satisfying answer for why there are exactly four truth procedures, or why they're individuated the way they are {why not love-politics and art-science?}.
The underlying issue I have with Badiou, besides the pretence of mathematical rigour that follows him around, is that I read him as basically an idealist. I think that's what happens when your central category in ontology is truth - you gotta ask "of what?", and here it's some world-shattering reconfiguration, and that world is always a world with humans in it.
I also enjoy, what I recall as, Laruelle's remark about Badiou that Badiou pretends to be the ultimate philosopher of multiplicity, but the scope of his architectonics and strict methodological purity in metaphysics {it needs mathemes} renders him both pragmatically and ontologically a firm ally of the one.
Though I think Badiou made the same remark about Deleuze for different reasons. So I could be mistaking that. Laruelle's Anti-Badiou was one of the hardest books I've read. I hope it was easier in French, but I doubt it.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 15, 2025 at 01:51#9689050 likes
I'm fond of him, but I think he thinks he's more rigorous than he is. If you read his use of mathematics as examples of "his master" Lacan's mathemes, they make some amount of sense. Cosmogenesis {not that it's exactly cosmogenesis but whatever} out of the empty set doesn't make too much sense. The universe being equated with lack of set level concept applicable to the set of all sets doesn't make much sense either.
Thanks for sharing that, I feel the same way about that. It's just sophistry.
never found a satisfying answer for why there are exactly four truth procedures, or why they're individuated the way they are {why not love-politics and art-science?}.
Because he "just likes" the number 4, as stupid as that sounds. Why does Hegel always use the number 3 as a model for basically everything in his philosophy? Because he "just likes" the number 3.
The underlying issue I have with Badiou, besides the pretence of mathematical rigour that follows him around, is that I read him as basically an idealist.
Nothing wrong with that though, IMHO. Hegel was an idealist, Marx was a materialist. Both of them were dialectical. Idealism is not a big deal, honestly.
I also enjoy, what I recall as, Laruelle's remark about Badiou that Badiou pretends to be the ultimate philosopher of multiplicity, but the scope of his architectonics and strict methodological purity in metaphysics {it needs mathemes} renders him both pragmatically and ontologically a firm ally of the one.
I can't comment much about that, Laruelle sounds kinda crazy. To my ear, at least.
Though I think Badiou made the same remark about Deleuze for different reasons. So I could be mistaking that. Laruelle's Anti-Badiou was one of the hardest books I've read. I hope it was easier in French, but I doubt it.
I don't know what to tell you about that, friend. I just think that Badiou is really lousy as a mathematician, so I'm obviously biased and prejudiced against him.
He is. You might enjoy Brassier's condensation of him in "Axiomatic Heresy". There's a much longer discussion of Laruelle in {slightly} plainer English in Brassier's "Alien Theory" too. I think it's worth looking into if you're very sick of playing pomo bingo in every paper you read. I just switch off when I hear things like "create and sustain", "in and through", "engender and presuppose". Laruelle has an excellent vantage point on such catcheisms of reciprocal determination.
By a big deal I mean it's a big deal to me if I put on my philosophy hat. Though I'm under no illusions that idealism could be convincingly refuted to every interlocutor. In the grand scheme of things whether someone is an idealist is so obscure it doesn't matter at all.
Arcane SandwichFebruary 15, 2025 at 03:23#9689410 likes
What are your thoughts, ethically speaking, on the possibility (nay, the project) of creating a malevolent artificial intelligence?
I'll answer my own question: there is no such thing as a malevolent artificial intelligence. And, by parity of reasoning, it follows that there is no such thing as a good artificial intelligence either.
As you might imagine, I was thinking about the problem of creating a moderation-light forum approach even before you resigned. In general I think Vanilla/Plush is too outdated, and provides the mods with too little leverage to do their job. The ban-or-nothing consequence structure naturally creates a laissez-faire environment. This is the note I jotted down when musing on the question:
It would seem that real life interactions are opt in, not opt out, and that this makes a large part of the difference on internet forums. At least, it is that part of the difference that can actually be managed. So what if on a discussion forum, the person creating the thread had the ability to allow only a specific set of people to comment within the thread. This could be combined with an invitation system in which people could ask permission to be invited into the thread. Uninvitations would not be allowed, except perhaps in rare circumstances. This would create an environment in which those who dont play nice would not be invited to play at all, and yet which would not need to avoid the anonymous nature of the internet.
Something like this would be one attempt to create a self-managing community which better reflects the way the real world works. The troll who has too much time on their hands and goes around derailing thread after thread is simply not invited to participate in threads by those who make them. This is an example of a feature that could drastically cut down on moderation costs, and also lead to healthier communities where bad actors are naturally disincentivized. Ideally it would help combat the way in which the internet has become a natural home for the anonymous, parasitic rabble-rouser.
In real life it is not taken for granted that someone is worth talking to, or that someone possesses the social competence to be invited into a discussion. Why not extend that to internet forums? Why not create an internal incentive for users to maintain an appreciable level of post quality and social quality?
[hide="Reveal"]Edit: A conceptual difference from Mikie's request is that whereas his exclusion is ideological, mine would be based on philosophical productivity. Of course his request could also be met by the feature here proposed, at least indirectly by inviting the right participants. It's worth asking whether this is a defect of the feature.[/hide]
@fdrake Riding herd on this cattle drive must be one of the more thankless jobs for which one doesn't get paid. You've been on the trail for a long time, and you no doubt need an extended rest stop in one of the rooms with services at the Long Branch Saloon. They have a large selection; just ring.
So hang up your saddle, check your horse into the local livery stable, and order a nice hot bath to soak away all the sturm and drang of the site.
And should you decide to make yourself scarce, thanks for letting us know in advance. I would thank you profusely for your dedicated service, but you know, you did have a thankless job, so...
Good luck!
javi2541997February 19, 2025 at 05:12#9703870 likes
Reply to BC Haven't you ever thought of being a moderator? I think you will be a great mod as well as @fdrake was. :smile:
This is an example of a feature that could drastically cut down on moderation costs, and also lead to healthier communities where bad actors are naturally disincentivized. Ideally it would help combat the way in which the internet has become a natural home for the anonymous, parasitic rabble-rouser.
As much as this would help remove perceived trolls from discussions, it would also act as a vehicle for trolling. I think it's better to ignore sub-discussions that aren't to your interest. It would also be nice if Plush had an innate user blocking feature for members. But it does not.
Fire OlogistFebruary 19, 2025 at 16:41#9705130 likes
I could submit the command to remove my own admin privileges
Even in your exit you leave us with with a philosophical dilemma to ponder - the self-determined command defining your own identity, versus some other determiner defeating what "I want" once again.
Thanks for your time, insights and just for sharing a bit of who you are. Look forward to hearing from you again.
LeontiskosFebruary 19, 2025 at 21:44#9706060 likes
The thing I'd want most is for people to be able to state a reason why posts are reported.
Thats a fairly modest request. :sweat:
In general I think part of the essence of a moderator is the possession of coercive force. Because the average Plush moderator can only delete a post or a thread, their ability to wield coercive force is highly limited, and hence their authority is also quite limited.
As much as this would help remove perceived trolls from discussions, it would also act as a vehicle for trolling.
I definitely think the forming of cliques could become a problem, and perhaps also a kind of indirect trolling. I think you would need rules such as, No quoting or referencing users who are not permitted to post in the thread. But enforcing that would of course introduce new moderation costs.
For me a philosophy forum is in essence a place where I can go to create or enter a thread on a philosophical topic and earnestly engage with other users on that topic. The feature I proposed would allow one to do such a thing. Bad actors could not derail threads, even if they could still troll from afar. This is but another modest goal, and the feature requires no immediate moderation. To give one prominent example, currently on TPF there is so much anti-religious trolling that a user who wants to create a religious thread is effectively prevented from doing so. The effort would be futile.
On my view if someone wants to have an earnest philosophical discussion, and they have the power to invite others who are interested in the same goal and exclude those who undermine that goal, then earnest philosophical discussions will occur. This is exactly why many of us prefer private message groups or real life groups over conversations in the trollspaces.
I think it's better to ignore sub-discussions that aren't to your interest.
In the real-world parallel this would be like saying that one should just ignore the protesters who are yelling during the meeting. Its possible in theory but not in practice. Granted, the ignore extension is great, and almost every user responds appropriately to being ignored, namely by slowly ceasing to engage with the person who is not responding to them. (Although I agree with you that a native Plush ignore feature would be better.)
The problem of limited moderation is a general problem that the internet needs to think harder about. There are all sorts of societal precedents. A simple one is the very concept of disturbing the peace, which is basically, Conduct and self-moderate your behavior appropriately or else you receive a vague, general, and low-moderation-cost infraction. A more complex one from older legal systems is, If you bring a facetious suit against someone, you pay the price you intended to inflict. Or in forum language, If you dont have a damn good reason to report a post, you will be punished for creating an undue burden on the moderators.* In my proto-forum I drew up a rule where users who make petty reports would simply lose their ability to report posts. Those sorts of rules are intended to protect the moderators time, and they are intended to sustain systems with limited legal/moderation resources.
If TPF moves onto a newer forum system I would be happy to help write open source plugins that aim to achieve a lighter moderator load. Indeed, if I host my own forum the software will be chosen primarily according to its ability to leverage user plugins and foster healthy internet environments that are more effective for users and especially moderators. Large forum softwares like Discourse or NodeBB have a large number of contributing developers who can collaboratively spit out features like this at the drop of a dime. Anyway, the point here is that moderator burnout should not be inevitable. [hide="*"]And I apologize for any irony in which I contributed to your burnout.[/hide]
Do you have any thoughts on ways to lighten moderator load to avoid burnout or disillusionment?
* Incidentally, anonymous post-flagging strikes me as an insanely bad feature.
You are one of the people I respect most on TPF. I can't remember ever seeing you lose patience, which is more than can be said about many, including myself. I wish you well and hope you continue to contribute.
It has happened a few times. Luckily my anger is quite milquetoast. It's sufficiently British online that it counts as a barbed comment or passive aggression, which for some reason are more socially acceptable than being a sweary swear swear.
Comments (158)
(Edited because I removed a music video)
And your status as 'Admin'? Are you moving on from that as well?
What on earth is going on?
Baden seems to have given up the ghost, too?
Is it a 10yr anniversary re-think?
Who will be next?
Mass exit?
Well, I suppose you're all entitled to a rest after all the years of wonderful service. :clap: :clap: :clap:
Thank you @fdrake :100: :flower:
Baden's just on a break from the internet. He'll be back eventually.
Quoting Amity
Yes. I'll be doing nothing more for the site other than perhaps post.
Thanks for quick reply and clarification. Appreciated, as always.
Whatever you do with your new time, enjoy the day. Take care. Be well. :sparkle: :flower:
Can you grant preemptive pardons to your favorite members as part of your last moderator actions?
There is. It's called 'Feedback'. I doubt any mods, present, past or future would use it to complain.
There would seem to be an element of loyalty and need for privacy in airing 'what is really going on'.
Some will share in PMs. Or in other places. Or not at all.
The job is time-consuming and messy. It takes a certain kind of person to do it well.
Sometimes, we get to see timely interventions. Other times, not so much. Work is behind the scenes, not recognised and not given enough appreciation.
As you know, the messiness comes in degrees and cycles.
Lately, there seems to have been an increase in reporting to mods.
There comes a point when some say, "Enough is enough!".
It must take its toll on those who have been dedicated to the site for 10yrs...
I couldn't do it for 5 minutes.
Time and health are precious. Best wishes to all who make the choice to move on.
:heart: :flower: :pray:
For those mods that stay. Thank you :100: :clap:
Lol I went into teaching and forgot most of the hardcore maths.
Quoting Mikie
Naw. Thank god.
Quoting unenlightened
I think that's the Shoutbox. {shots fired}
I missed loads of stuff all the time.
I also am sorry to go. I don't want to!
I agree Amity.
It is true that a mod's job is behind the scenes, and it is not always recognised. I even remember some bleak members who tried to make the ambience even worse, and they confronted the mods.
I will be honest: I also did one or a few tantrums. I didn't like when some threads were put in The Lounge, my endless discussions with universeness, or how I personally take the short story contest. I know I am not an easy fella. I appreciate the generous behaviour they always had, and I am aware that banning a member is not easy.
You have to volunteer if you want to be a mod, generally speaking. Maybe it's different in The Philosophy Forum, I don't know.
I admit that I lose my control often, and I am biased on explicit topics. For example: I can't see myself as a good mod in Gaza thread because I root for Palestinian people, and I am not very fond of Israel.
A mod should act as we expect from judges: objectively.
Well, I'd say that you're my friend, if there's such a thing as Internet friendships. So, I have already given you the right to moderate me, informally at least.
Quoting javi2541997
Well, everyone does. That's why everyone self-moderates, informally.
Quoting javi2541997
So is everyone, arguably.
Quoting javi2541997
Not every moderator has to moderate every single topic of discussion. Maybe your talents and knowledge are better suited to moderate topics in Philosophy of Art, for example. You don't have to moderate political topics if you don't want to.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes, indeed. I agree.
Please stop thanking me now.
Also stop apologising.
You could do that by refraining from posting off topic music videos that inevitably clog up the mod action queue.
Now that I don't have to be objective.
And you're probably already aware of this, but how literal and direct your interpretations of other people's posts are can come off as acerbic. If someone doesn't have a frame of reference for your social style anyway. That isn't just a you thing. People can interpret you being direct, literal and detail focussed as disrespectful and then escalate what they perceive as a conflict.
I'm not even sure you can do anything about it anyway, it's just something to be mindful of.
Quoting fdrake
That sounds a bit defeatist to my ear.
I'd be interesting in known your opinion about these gargantuan numbers. Or, scratch that, can I please ask you what you think about them? Forget the article. What do you think of Graham's Number, for example?
I don't care. The size of the number is unimportant.
Drake I updated my comment.
Yeah you just gotta make a bigger universe obv.
I advise you to read what I wrote about music videos again.
Skill issue honestly.
The set of the series of single-digit integers = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
If you (or anyone else) wants to write Graham's Number, or TREE(3), using the set defined above, then there's not enough matter in the universe to do that.
That's why we simply call them "Graham's Number", or "TREE(3)".
Do you agree or disagree with me on that, Drake? It has nothing to do with skill. Right?
I'm just shitposting because I don't really care.
Because you can't shitpost without appearing to be somewhat sincere.
Do I agree with this? I'm not sure. What do you mean by that?
I consider you as my friend too. But I don't want to act like I am a shepherd and you my loyal mastiff.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Not really. I have seen some folks who control themselves and know to ensure eclectic positions in different topics. @Count Timothy von Icarus is a good example, and his appointment as moderator was a very good decision by the forum.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
That's interesting.
I don't know if you already notice that there is a short story contest once a year. The previous contests were based on a system of poll voting, but readers were not forced to read and leave feedback. Thus, explaining why they gave a 2 instead of 5, for example. I disagreed with this, and I remember putting a lot of effort into supervising that each author had the feedback they deserved, but I ended up mentally exhausted. My aim was just to keep the contest up on an optimal level. I care a lot about the contest, but caring is not the only important feature. If I take personally the way some folks treat the short stories or the contest itself, I couldn't be a good mod because my attitude is obviously biased.
Well, mastiffs are horrendous. My favorite animal is the Ant-Eater.
, do you mind if I post a funny video about a guy that dedicated his life to studying Ant-Eaters? Would everyone else mind?
Right, so maybe Philosophy of Art is not the best topic for you to moderate, then. Have you considered moderating Philosophy of Religion? Maybe your skills and talents and knowledge would be better suited for moderating that general topic.
The true form of the shitpost is that which leaves what is stated unstated and what is unstated stated.
Please let me stop you right there, Drake. There is no such thing as "the true form of the shitpost". Why? Because "shitposts" (whatever that means) do not have a "form" (whatever that means).
Quoting fdrake
That sounds like nonsense.
Philosophy of Religion? An interesting topic, indeed. But my knowledge doesn't go beyond Kierkegaard or Hegel. Very basic. That's why I appreciate the guts of those who volunteer to moderate!
Nonsense is the said unsaid.
Well, if you want to be a moderator, you have to think about it! You can't just wait for the admins of a forum to approach you and say "hey javi, wanna take time our of your weekly schedule to work for free as a forum moderator?" It's like, they can't ask you to do that. Not because it's unlawful (it isn't) or illegal (it isn't), but rather because it's not polite. It's not polite to ask people to work for free. That's why you have to volunteer. And, arguably, for legal reasons, you have to do it explicitly. Stated differently, you make an explicit request.
:rofl:
Yeah, maybe.
True, but that must not surprise anyone since volunteering is already a free task. So, I don't see why it would not be polite to ask for doing it for free. We are talking about volunteers, not bankers. :rofl:
Javi, I consider you a friend. So, please let me give you some advice: that joke that you just made there, could get you killed IRL. Not by me, obviously. But, if you made that joke in New York City, to an Italian, you might get killed. I should know, part of my heritage is Italian.
I'm not trying to scare you, Javi. I'm just giving you some advice. Italians won't take it easy on you just because you're Spanish.
Trust Me Bro.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
I wholeheartedly trust you, mate.
To me it's nothing. I'm a blue belt in brazilian jiu jitsu. I'm ready to die right now, I don't give a fuck.
Quoting javi2541997
I trust you too, friend.
I just don't care about big number, because big number is big is boring.
Hmmm... but that just begs the question: what is not boring, then?
You're still staying on the forum though, right?
Yeah. Though I probably won't post much. After I've spent my pent up energy from being neutral for a decade.
Hey, hey! I'm a True Neutral on the D&D alignment chart. Always have, always will be! :sparkle:
You defended people who were abusive. Maybe don't do that in real life.
Oh? Who?
I hope you can elucidate to us the true nature of statistics. Would it be possible to one day discover causation from correlation?
Just food for thought.
Mikie was just one long stream of verbal abuse. There wasn't even any philosophy in it. Just abuse. You defended her every step of the way. Why did you do that?
The majority of @Mikie's posts that you were talking about, I believe, were directed toward people who he believed - reasonably - were supporting genocide, the thorough subversion of democracy, and the annihilation of the human race. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to be civil about such things.
And you really believe this is what was happening?
Quoting fdrake
...
Yes. I advise you try moderating any political discussion which involves climate change, gender, race or Gaza.
Dude. She was abusive to everybody every single day.
This was my goodbye message to him. Don't defend abusive people.
I see. Well I suppose you could make a Feedback thread.
I will not defend abusive people; so did fdrake I am sure.
Very funny.
What does that have to do with anything?
I took your invitation to indulge in irrelevant shit throwing.
The fact that you kept a member who not only is often abusive (but of course excuses himself for) but, worse, reduces the forum to Twitter-level content for years shows how tolerant and level-headed you were. Thats my goodbye message.
@frank
You know what video game you should play (or re-play)?
This one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Knight#Gabriel_Knight:_Sins_of_the_Fathers
You're misunderstanding me. I was being completely honest. I wanted you to think about it going forward.
What?
Oh Im a guy. Thats me in my profile picture. Why?
I know you were being honest.
@frank seemed to believe you were a girl.
Ah further demonstrating keen perception.
I'm quite enjoying stoking the fire.
Keepin' it real, man.
Thank you, sir.
Stoking the fire is a bannable offense.
Come at me bro.
@fdrake
I'm not a mod, it's someone else's problem. :lol:
Right, but I'm just asking out of common courtesy.
No comment.
I guess I don't understand what is entailed by being a mod. Why would you want to step down? Are you just trying to free up your time?
Irregardless, I wish you the best, fdrake. Quality philosophers are quite rare on here. I hope you choose to at least stay as a member on the forum.
:smirk:
Quoting Amity
Me too! :100:
No comment, innit brev.
Or Carpe diem, whatever.
I'm fond of him, but I think he thinks he's more rigorous than he is. If you read his use of mathematics as examples of "his master" Lacan's mathemes, they make some amount of sense. Cosmogenesis {not that it's exactly cosmogenesis but whatever} out of the empty set doesn't make too much sense. The universe being equated with lack of set level concept applicable to the set of all sets doesn't make much sense either.
I never found a satisfying answer for why there are exactly four truth procedures, or why they're individuated the way they are {why not love-politics and art-science?}.
The underlying issue I have with Badiou, besides the pretence of mathematical rigour that follows him around, is that I read him as basically an idealist. I think that's what happens when your central category in ontology is truth - you gotta ask "of what?", and here it's some world-shattering reconfiguration, and that world is always a world with humans in it.
I also enjoy, what I recall as, Laruelle's remark about Badiou that Badiou pretends to be the ultimate philosopher of multiplicity, but the scope of his architectonics and strict methodological purity in metaphysics {it needs mathemes} renders him both pragmatically and ontologically a firm ally of the one.
Though I think Badiou made the same remark about Deleuze for different reasons. So I could be mistaking that. Laruelle's Anti-Badiou was one of the hardest books I've read. I hope it was easier in French, but I doubt it.
Thanks for sharing that, I feel the same way about that. It's just sophistry.
Quoting fdrake
Because he "just likes" the number 4, as stupid as that sounds. Why does Hegel always use the number 3 as a model for basically everything in his philosophy? Because he "just likes" the number 3.
Quoting fdrake
Nothing wrong with that though, IMHO. Hegel was an idealist, Marx was a materialist. Both of them were dialectical. Idealism is not a big deal, honestly.
Quoting fdrake
I agree.
Quoting fdrake
Yup, same old, same old.
Quoting fdrake
I can't comment much about that, Laruelle sounds kinda crazy. To my ear, at least.
Quoting fdrake
I don't know what to tell you about that, friend. I just think that Badiou is really lousy as a mathematician, so I'm obviously biased and prejudiced against him.
He doesn't do mathematics. He uses mathematics. I wouldn't want to call him a mathematician any more than I'd want to call him a novelist.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
He is. You might enjoy Brassier's condensation of him in "Axiomatic Heresy". There's a much longer discussion of Laruelle in {slightly} plainer English in Brassier's "Alien Theory" too. I think it's worth looking into if you're very sick of playing pomo bingo in every paper you read. I just switch off when I hear things like "create and sustain", "in and through", "engender and presuppose". Laruelle has an excellent vantage point on such catcheisms of reciprocal determination.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
It is to me. I enjoy the thoroughly inhuman. It's a shame if everything is eye shaped.
@Wayfarer knows how I feel about idealism very well. We argued about it for years!
And it shall never be.
By a big deal I mean it's a big deal to me if I put on my philosophy hat. Though I'm under no illusions that idealism could be convincingly refuted to every interlocutor. In the grand scheme of things whether someone is an idealist is so obscure it doesn't matter at all.
Suppose that such is your premise. The next part follows from it:
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
What are your thoughts, ethically speaking, on the possibility (nay, the project) of creating a malevolent artificial intelligence?
I'll answer my own question: there is no such thing as a malevolent artificial intelligence. And, by parity of reasoning, it follows that there is no such thing as a good artificial intelligence either.
For general AI, for now it's a boring problem that a Bay Area cargo cult popularised in order to dupe donations from impressionable software nerds.
Thems were the days .
@Wayfarer
This might cheer you folks up a bit:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15778/the-four-suits-%EF%B8%8F
As you might imagine, I was thinking about the problem of creating a moderation-light forum approach even before you resigned. In general I think Vanilla/Plush is too outdated, and provides the mods with too little leverage to do their job. The ban-or-nothing consequence structure naturally creates a laissez-faire environment. This is the note I jotted down when musing on the question:
Something like this would be one attempt to create a self-managing community which better reflects the way the real world works. The troll who has too much time on their hands and goes around derailing thread after thread is simply not invited to participate in threads by those who make them. This is an example of a feature that could drastically cut down on moderation costs, and also lead to healthier communities where bad actors are naturally disincentivized. Ideally it would help combat the way in which the internet has become a natural home for the anonymous, parasitic rabble-rouser.
In real life it is not taken for granted that someone is worth talking to, or that someone possesses the social competence to be invited into a discussion. Why not extend that to internet forums? Why not create an internal incentive for users to maintain an appreciable level of post quality and social quality?
[hide="Reveal"]Edit: A conceptual difference from Mikie's request is that whereas his exclusion is ideological, mine would be based on philosophical productivity. Of course his request could also be met by the feature here proposed, at least indirectly by inviting the right participants. It's worth asking whether this is a defect of the feature.[/hide]
So hang up your saddle, check your horse into the local livery stable, and order a nice hot bath to soak away all the sturm and drang of the site.
And should you decide to make yourself scarce, thanks for letting us know in advance. I would thank you profusely for your dedicated service, but you know, you did have a thankless job, so...
Good luck!
The thing I'd want most is for people to be able to state a reason why posts are reported.
Quoting Leontiskos
As much as this would help remove perceived trolls from discussions, it would also act as a vehicle for trolling. I think it's better to ignore sub-discussions that aren't to your interest. It would also be nice if Plush had an innate user blocking feature for members. But it does not.
Quoting fdrake
Even in your exit you leave us with with a philosophical dilemma to ponder - the self-determined command defining your own identity, versus some other determiner defeating what "I want" once again.
Thanks for your time, insights and just for sharing a bit of who you are. Look forward to hearing from you again.
Thats a fairly modest request. :sweat:
In general I think part of the essence of a moderator is the possession of coercive force. Because the average Plush moderator can only delete a post or a thread, their ability to wield coercive force is highly limited, and hence their authority is also quite limited.
Quoting fdrake
I definitely think the forming of cliques could become a problem, and perhaps also a kind of indirect trolling. I think you would need rules such as, No quoting or referencing users who are not permitted to post in the thread. But enforcing that would of course introduce new moderation costs.
For me a philosophy forum is in essence a place where I can go to create or enter a thread on a philosophical topic and earnestly engage with other users on that topic. The feature I proposed would allow one to do such a thing. Bad actors could not derail threads, even if they could still troll from afar. This is but another modest goal, and the feature requires no immediate moderation. To give one prominent example, currently on TPF there is so much anti-religious trolling that a user who wants to create a religious thread is effectively prevented from doing so. The effort would be futile.
On my view if someone wants to have an earnest philosophical discussion, and they have the power to invite others who are interested in the same goal and exclude those who undermine that goal, then earnest philosophical discussions will occur. This is exactly why many of us prefer private message groups or real life groups over conversations in the trollspaces.
Quoting fdrake
In the real-world parallel this would be like saying that one should just ignore the protesters who are yelling during the meeting. Its possible in theory but not in practice. Granted, the ignore extension is great, and almost every user responds appropriately to being ignored, namely by slowly ceasing to engage with the person who is not responding to them. (Although I agree with you that a native Plush ignore feature would be better.)
The problem of limited moderation is a general problem that the internet needs to think harder about. There are all sorts of societal precedents. A simple one is the very concept of disturbing the peace, which is basically, Conduct and self-moderate your behavior appropriately or else you receive a vague, general, and low-moderation-cost infraction. A more complex one from older legal systems is, If you bring a facetious suit against someone, you pay the price you intended to inflict. Or in forum language, If you dont have a damn good reason to report a post, you will be punished for creating an undue burden on the moderators.* In my proto-forum I drew up a rule where users who make petty reports would simply lose their ability to report posts. Those sorts of rules are intended to protect the moderators time, and they are intended to sustain systems with limited legal/moderation resources.
If TPF moves onto a newer forum system I would be happy to help write open source plugins that aim to achieve a lighter moderator load. Indeed, if I host my own forum the software will be chosen primarily according to its ability to leverage user plugins and foster healthy internet environments that are more effective for users and especially moderators. Large forum softwares like Discourse or NodeBB have a large number of contributing developers who can collaboratively spit out features like this at the drop of a dime. Anyway, the point here is that moderator burnout should not be inevitable. [hide="*"]And I apologize for any irony in which I contributed to your burnout.[/hide]
Do you have any thoughts on ways to lighten moderator load to avoid burnout or disillusionment?
* Incidentally, anonymous post-flagging strikes me as an insanely bad feature.
I didn't step down because of burnout.
I hope you stepped down because of something good, and not something bad.
Thank you!
It has happened a few times. Luckily my anger is quite milquetoast. It's sufficiently British online that it counts as a barbed comment or passive aggression, which for some reason are more socially acceptable than being a sweary swear swear.