what qualifies a mod?

[Athena]

I would rather handle this through private messages, but for some reason I am being prevented from sending private messages.

 

What qualifies a moderator to make judgments in the religious and philosophy forums? It has become obvious intentions are good, but a lack of education in these fields is resulting in bad judgement. The interference in threads is ruining the very meaning and purpose of our freedom of speech which is to discover truth. This is wholly different from preventing harm caused by bad intentioned people. It is causing harm to discussions created by good intentioned people with terrible social ramifications, just as the church's of old efforts to control what talk about. In both cases the problem is good intentions mixed with ignorance. So now how is such interference justified? You who would insist only qualified people do a job, answer me, what qualifies a person to judge what is said in a religious or philosophy forum? It is not education for technology. That is the problem.

[iNow]

There are no qualifications required. The existing team decides whether or not a nominated individual should have the permission to move, delete, and edit posts/threads added to their account. That's really it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you're having a problem sending private messages, why not ask us for help resolving it? Nobody has disabled your private messaging system, so the only possible problem is that you have more than 500 PMs, which exceeds the quota; if so, delete some old ones to free up space. Otherwise, ask us and we can help resolve the problem.

 

If you object to a specific moderator action, use the Report link attached to their post. I can't make a meaningful comment about your accusations without knowing what actions you're talking about.

 

Incidentally, I would greatly appreciate it if you'd stop insulting our staff by private message. It's getting tiresome.

[Phi for All]

This isn't a religious site, it's a science forum with a religion section.

 

This isn't a democracy, it's a science forum, so your speech has to conform to the rules.

 

As far as qualifications, we enforce the rules. The rules in the Religion sections are actually simple. Since there are many religions, your beliefs are considered to be interpretations, and are therefore opinions and must be stated as such. You will have no problems if you express your opinion about anything, as long as you obey the other rules as well.

 

When you make assertions, state things as fact, then you are subject to the way science works. You must back up any statements made as fact, just as in the other sections. This is only fair, considering how many different beliefs and faiths there are, and our desire to keep discussions civil and productive.

 

I'm sorry you view this as too much control. It serves us well, and I'm afraid you find yourself in the minority here. The vast majority of people here wouldn't have it any other way. There are plenty of religious sites you can go to and proclaim your faith to be the one true faith, but you came here and are therefore bound to the rules this private site has.

[swansont]

I think you need to point to an example or two. Otherwise this is too hypothetical, for something purported to involve real actions.

 

Moderators should not be participating in the substance of a discussion if they are performing moderator tasks, which includes enforcing the rules everyone agreed to follow when they joined (an exception is in Speculations). However, if we are not moderating, we are free to participate and add our voice to the discussion.

[Athena]

I was talking philosophy, not religion, and my comment was a counter argument to the statement that philosophy is crap. Without religion how do we make moral decisions? How many other choices are there besides philosophy? I was speaking of the importance of philosophy. And I can't find the button to call your attention to the offense, but I guess I don't need it, for this disagreement. What need is an explanation of how anyone thinks I was talking religion, instead of saying there is a problem with religion?

 

There are no qualifications required. The existing team decides whether or not a nominated individual should have the permission to move, delete, and edit posts/threads added to their account. That's really it.

 

 

This is what I thought. A person needs zero understanding of philosophy to judge what is written in the philosophy thread, and this explains why my argument about the importance of philosophy was moved to the religion thread. An argument against the argument that philosophy is crap. It appears everyone is over sensitive to anything said about religion.

 

I think you need to point to an example or two. Otherwise this is too hypothetical, for something purported to involve real actions.

 

Moderators should not be participating in the substance of a discussion if they are performing moderator tasks, which includes enforcing the rules everyone agreed to follow when they joined (an exception is in Speculations). However, if we are not moderating, we are free to participate and add our voice to the discussion.

 

Okay, I point to the "religion and morality" thread that was created by iodine. My argument opposing the argument that philosophy is crap, was removed from that thread and put in a separate thread in the religion forum.

 

Personally I think the arbitrary judgment of splitting threads are good intentioned, but rude and disrespectful. Good intentions should begin with the respect of asking. A tyrant is not necessarily a mean and bad person. My years as mother taught me, a tyrant can have very good intentions, but the problem is having no balance of power. We are effectively like children to the moderators, as they do what they want with our post, without asking, and without necessary information. In this case, I was arguing why philosophy is important, and my argument was separated from the thread that philosophy is crap, and was put in a religion forum! To do such a thing without asking, is disrespectful, and this time, such a clear error. However, I know her intentions were good. Sincerely, I believe her intentions are good. So were mine when as a mother, I acted as a tyrant, but didn't know as much as I needed to know, like a better way of getting the results I wanted to get. So I inadvertently hurt my children. So were the king of England's intentions good, but the colonist insisted on having a say in government. There is just something that feels really awful about having no control over what we are doing, because things are done arbitrarily. This maybe a good thing if someone is a criminal, or acting in a way that harm others, but it is not so good a when person's intentions are good, and there is a chance something good can out of what the person is doing. By the way, I am preaching. I am on the internet to raise awareness of what our democracy is all about, and some days that seems futile. How you all do things is your business, but I like people to know the reasoning of democracy.

 

PS swansort, what are you communicating with that gun? In the religion and morality thread someone argued dislike of being controlled by fear. He was speaking of the fear of god, but isn't a gun kind of like a godlike tool? King James argued he was like God, because of his powers over the people. This mentality doesn't seem improved when many have it. We are now afraid of each other, and being prepared to point and shoot does not help, because it is not pleasant feeling like your target.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Athena

[Mr Rayon]

There higher ups of this forum have been considering promoting me to the title of "super mod".

[doG]

I would rather handle this through private messages, but for some reason I am being prevented from sending private messages.

 

What qualifies a moderator to make judgments in the religious and philosophy forums? It has become obvious intentions are good, but a lack of education in these fields is resulting in bad judgement. The interference in threads is ruining the very meaning and purpose of our freedom of speech which is to discover truth. This is wholly different from preventing harm caused by bad intentioned people. It is causing harm to discussions created by good intentioned people with terrible social ramifications, just as the church's of old efforts to control what talk about. In both cases the problem is good intentions mixed with ignorance. So now how is such interference justified? You who would insist only qualified people do a job, answer me, what qualifies a person to judge what is said in a religious or philosophy forum? It is not education for technology. That is the problem.

We've been through this before and it's quite obvious you either didn't understand or chose not to. At any rate, this is a PRIVATE internet forum run and regulated by a private staff assembled by this site to uphold the rules they made for this site. If you don't like it then quit bitching about it and go make your own site with your own rules and you can have it exactly the way YOU want it.

Edited May 19, 2012 by doG

[swansont]

Okay, I point to the "religion and morality" thread that was created by iodine. My argument opposing the argument that philosophy is crap, was removed from that thread and put in a separate thread in the religion forum.

 

And your post was on the topic of morality, which led to responses that were about morality and not addressing the topic of the thread from which it was split.

 

Personally I think the arbitrary judgment of splitting threads are good intentioned, but rude and disrespectful. Good intentions should begin with the respect of asking. A tyrant is not necessarily a mean and bad person. My years as mother taught me, a tyrant can have very good intentions, but the problem is having no balance of power. We are effectively like children to the moderators, as they do what they want with our post, without asking, and without necessary information.

 

Without endorsing this as true, I will say that this is the system we have. Moderators are volunteers, and we have to take a pragmatic approach. If you place an undue burden on mods, nobody will want to be a mod. Or, more specifically, nobody with the temperament to be a mod will want to be a mod. I think that every mod here would rather just be a participant and not have to deal with moderator duties, but the reality is that we have crackpots and troll and spammers and flamers, and someone has to enforce the rules, because overall it's a much better experience when that's the case than if it's a free-for-all.

 

 

If you simply want to preach with no interference, you can start up a blog.

 

PS swansort, what are you communicating with that gun? In the religion and morality thread someone argued dislike of being controlled by fear. He was speaking of the fear of god, but isn't a gun kind of like a godlike tool? King James argued he was like God, because of his powers over the people. This mentality doesn't seem improved when many have it. We are now afraid of each other, and being prepared to point and shoot does not help, because it is not pleasant feeling like your target.

 

To paraphrase Freud, sometime a gun is just a gun. I like James Bond — the real James Bond, i.e. Sean Connery, and I chose that image at one point when the mods were playing some games with their avatars. (I opted out of the Pokemon phase). I used to be a Knight Who Says "Ni!" Psychoanalyze that, if you care to.

[Phi for All]

To paraphrase Freud, sometime a gun is just a gun. I like James Bond — the real James Bond, i.e. Sean Connery, and I chose that image at one point when the mods were playing some games with their avatars. (I opted out of the Pokemon phase). I used to be a Knight Who Says "Ni!" Psychoanalyze that, if you care to.

Gah, you were so close to being able to change your avatar after the last time someone implied that you were trying to make people fear you! Now you'll have to keep it for another six months.

 

Bond gets put in the crosshairs once again. When people are grasping for straws, he becomes the target of reticle!

[zapatos]

I was talking philosophy, not religion, and my comment was a counter argument to the statement that philosophy is crap. Without religion how do we make moral decisions? How many other choices are there besides philosophy? I was speaking of the importance of philosophy. And I can't find the button to call your attention to the offense, but I guess I don't need it, for this disagreement. What need is an explanation of how anyone thinks I was talking religion, instead of saying there is a problem with religion?

 

 

 

 

This is what I thought. A person needs zero understanding of philosophy to judge what is written in the philosophy thread, and this explains why my argument about the importance of philosophy was moved to the religion thread. An argument against the argument that philosophy is crap. It appears everyone is over sensitive to anything said about religion.

 

 

 

Okay, I point to the "religion and morality" thread that was created by iodine. My argument opposing the argument that philosophy is crap, was removed from that thread and put in a separate thread in the religion forum.

 

Personally I think the arbitrary judgment of splitting threads are good intentioned, but rude and disrespectful. Good intentions should begin with the respect of asking. A tyrant is not necessarily a mean and bad person. My years as mother taught me, a tyrant can have very good intentions, but the problem is having no balance of power. We are effectively like children to the moderators, as they do what they want with our post, without asking, and without necessary information. In this case, I was arguing why philosophy is important, and my argument was separated from the thread that philosophy is crap, and was put in a religion forum! To do such a thing without asking, is disrespectful, and this time, such a clear error. However, I know her intentions were good. Sincerely, I believe her intentions are good. So were mine when as a mother, I acted as a tyrant, but didn't know as much as I needed to know, like a better way of getting the results I wanted to get. So I inadvertently hurt my children. So were the king of England's intentions good, but the colonist insisted on having a say in government. There is just something that feels really awful about having no control over what we are doing, because things are done arbitrarily. This maybe a good thing if someone is a criminal, or acting in a way that harm others, but it is not so good a when person's intentions are good, and there is a chance something good can out of what the person is doing. By the way, I am preaching. I am on the internet to raise awareness of what our democracy is all about, and some days that seems futile. How you all do things is your business, but I like people to know the reasoning of democracy.

 

PS swansort, what are you communicating with that gun? In the religion and morality thread someone argued dislike of being controlled by fear. He was speaking of the fear of god, but isn't a gun kind of like a godlike tool? King James argued he was like God, because of his powers over the people. This mentality doesn't seem improved when many have it. We are now afraid of each other, and being prepared to point and shoot does not help, because it is not pleasant feeling like your target.

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

 

This isn't ancient Greece, pre-WWI Germany or Prussia. This is not the seat of democracy being defiled by those who do not know where morals come from. The mods aren't tyrants, King James, or uneducated technoids. There is no conspiracy between the mods and the vast majority of participants to squelch your rights. People who disagree with you are not attacking you. And you are not always right.

 

This is just a little corner of the internet where people gather to talk and learn, with a minimum of control by a group of volunteers who are doing their best to keep things running smoothly using the least amount of interference. The rules are simple and you agreed to follow them.

 

If you spent half as much effort trying to force feed everyone your view of what democracy "is all about" as you spend complaining, we'd all be converts by now.

 

Please give it a rest.

[Athena]

And your post was on the topic of morality, which led to responses that were about morality and not addressing the topic of the thread from which it was split.

 

 

 

Without endorsing this as true, I will say that this is the system we have. Moderators are volunteers, and we have to take a pragmatic approach. If you place an undue burden on mods, nobody will want to be a mod. Or, more specifically, nobody with the temperament to be a mod will want to be a mod. I think that every mod here would rather just be a participant and not have to deal with moderator duties, but the reality is that we have crackpots and troll and spammers and flamers, and someone has to enforce the rules, because overall it's a much better experience when that's the case than if it's a free-for-all.

 

 

If you simply want to preach with no interference, you can start up a blog.

 

 

 

To paraphrase Freud, sometime a gun is just a gun. I like James Bond — the real James Bond, i.e. Sean Connery, and I chose that image at one point when the mods were playing some games with their avatars. (I opted out of the Pokemon phase). I used to be a Knight Who Says "Ni!" Psychoanalyze that, if you care to.

 

Morality - Philosophy

1. www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htmWithout these principles in place, societies cannot survive for long. In today's world, morality is frequently thought of as belonging to a particular religious point of ...
2. 
   The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
   plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/Mar 14, 2011 – A society whose morality contains all three of these features may be criticized by philosophers that accept a normative account of morality if in ...
   1. Descriptive Definitions of ... - 2. Normative Definitions of ... - Bibliography
3. 
   Philosophy, Morality and Society
   www.open.edu.au › Home › Courses & units › Arts & humanitiesPhilosophy, Morality and Society is a Arts & humanities undergraduate level 1 unit offered by Macquarie University through Open Universities Australia.
4. 
   Philosophy, et cetera: Society and Morality
   www.philosophyetc.net/2005/07/society-and-morality.htmlJul 9, 2005 – Many people claim that morality is defined in terms of the beliefs that are widely accepted in a society. Thus Melbourne Philosopher, for ...
5. 
   Philosophy, Morality and Society - PHL132 - 2012 Course ...
   www.handbook.mq.edu.au › Handbook HomeApr 20, 2011 – Philosophy, Morality and Society - PHL132. This unit provides an introduction to major topics in ethics, moral theory and contemporary political ...

Now how do you justify moving my philosophical comment about morality to religion?

[swansont]

Morality - Philosophy

1. www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htmWithout these principles in place, societies cannot survive for long. In today's world, morality is frequently thought of as belonging to a particular religious point of ...
2. 
   The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
   plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/Mar 14, 2011 – A society whose morality contains all three of these features may be criticized by philosophers that accept a normative account of morality if in ...
   1. Descriptive Definitions of ... - 2. Normative Definitions of ... - Bibliography
3. 
   Philosophy, Morality and Society
   www.open.edu.au › Home › Courses & units › Arts & humanitiesPhilosophy, Morality and Society is a Arts & humanities undergraduate level 1 unit offered by Macquarie University through Open Universities Australia.
4. 
   Philosophy, et cetera: Society and Morality
   www.philosophyetc.net/2005/07/society-and-morality.htmlJul 9, 2005 – Many people claim that morality is defined in terms of the beliefs that are widely accepted in a society. Thus Melbourne Philosopher, for ...
5. 
   Philosophy, Morality and Society - PHL132 - 2012 Course ...
   www.handbook.mq.edu.au › Handbook HomeApr 20, 2011 – Philosophy, Morality and Society - PHL132. This unit provides an introduction to major topics in ethics, moral theory and contemporary political ...

Now how do you justify moving my philosophical comment about morality to religion?

 

Because

I don't know. In a different science forum I have asked how we might come to moral decisions without religion, and that thread is not going so well. Actually the answers to such questions are frightening to me. It appears without at least some philosophy there are people interested in how things work who never question the morality of anything. Amoral science might not be a good thing, and it is what Zeus was afraid of.

 

and especially the responses to it, are not on the topic of "Is philosophy crap?" The discussion moved to morality and religion, which is a separate topic.

 

The issue is not whether to move posts, IMO, but which posts to move. It used to be that we could copy posts, and your original could have been left in the philosophy thread and also been the starter for the new thread. However, unfortunately when we upgraded software a while back we lost this functionality (and gained other functionality), and the split thread makes less sense without the post that triggered it. It's an imperfect system.

 

Nobody said you couldn't go back to the philosophy thread and restate your point (though perhaps making the connection a bit clearer would be in order), instead of complaining about the move. Same amount of effort on your part, really, or perhaps less.

[Athena]

Because

 

 

and especially the responses to it, are not on the topic of "Is philosophy crap?" The discussion moved to morality and religion, which is a separate topic.

 

The issue is not whether to move posts, IMO, but which posts to move. It used to be that we could copy posts, and your original could have been left in the philosophy thread and also been the starter for the new thread. However, unfortunately when we upgraded software a while back we lost this functionality (and gained other functionality), and the split thread makes less sense without the post that triggered it. It's an imperfect system.

 

Nobody said you couldn't go back to the philosophy thread and restate your point (though perhaps making the connection a bit clearer would be in order), instead of complaining about the move. Same amount of effort on your part, really, or perhaps less.

 

 

Really, a mod can arbitrarily decide to move a post and a person can undo this? Then why move the post in the first place? If the mod is meaning to be helpful, wouldn't it be respectful to ask first?

 

And most importantly, exactly how does anyone justify putting that post in religion? It has nothing to do with religion.

 

 

What is going badly in both science forums is the education problem. I didn't realize how bad it is. I sure didn't expect moderators who do not know the difference between religion and philosophy, and than deny an error was made? What kind of standard is this? It is unthinkable to apply this kind of standard to science.

[Ophiolite]

Do you think, Athena, that you might get a better hearing and stand a better chance of convincing the mod team an error had been made if you stopped insulting their education and intellectual capacity? Instead of a thread like this, you could have posted one where you explored the distinction betweenn philosophy and religion using the instance that concerns you as an example. Within that you could have given reasoned, supported arguments for your position. Of course, it wouldn't be as satisfying as throwing thinly veiled insults, but it might be more effective. So, the question for you is, what do you value more, satisfaction or effectiveness?

[timo]

Makes me wonder in which respect posting on an Internet forum can be considered "effective" at all.

[Phi for All]

Really, a mod can arbitrarily decide to move a post and a person can undo this? Then why move the post in the first place? If the mod is meaning to be helpful, wouldn't it be respectful to ask first?

There is rarely time to ask when multiple people are responding to a thread. The longer we wait, the more responses to the off-topic post add to the derailment.

 

And most importantly, exactly how does anyone justify putting that post in religion? It has nothing to do with religion.

Nothing? You bring up a discussion from another site about "how we might come to moral decisions without religion" and say it has NOTHING to do with religion?

 

Btw, I moved that thread to General Philosophy yesterday. I hope you can forgive such a grievous error on the part of our staff.

 

What is going badly in both science forums is the education problem. I didn't realize how bad it is. I sure didn't expect moderators who do not know the difference between religion and philosophy, and than deny an error was made? What kind of standard is this? It is unthinkable to apply this kind of standard to science.

Since this is a problem only you seem to be having, and at multiple sites, lex parsimoniae suggests a more economical explanation.

[swansont]

Really, a mod can arbitrarily decide to move a post and a person can undo this? Then why move the post in the first place? If the mod is meaning to be helpful, wouldn't it be respectful to ask first?

 

Respectful? Perhaps. Pragmatic, no.