On moderation, there seem to be two choices (or a combination of both). Either we try to enforce civil and sensible discussion, and therefore delete and sanction insults, baiting, off-topics posts and the like widely, or we take a light approach and only deal with clearly inappropriate comments.

Whichever approach, some basic rules will have to include these areas:

1. Those where (however unlikely any action will occur) I may be legally liable for the content:

- Threats and harassment.

- Overt villification based on race and sex. I am more than willing to include reasonable academic discussions on the roles of the sexes, and even some (within reason) on racial attributes. But there should be no need for any derogatory language. And, although I don't know if it is Australian or American law (or both or neither) which applies, it may not be legally acceptable either.

-On homosexuality and related topics, obviously arguments against such practices are perfectly acceptable. Restrained, occassional statements of distaste about these practices will also be acceptable. I would emphasis the words restrained and occasional though, and there is should be no need (and perhaps it is not legally permissible), even for us moral conservatives, to personally attack homosexuals as people (even in the abstract).

2. Sock puppets and multiple accounts.

Unless someone has a good reason, like not being able to access an old account, multiple accounts are not permitted and will be dealt with strongly. This is pretty standard for forums

3. Baiting and Trolling.

Even with a light touch, clear baiting and trolling is not acceptable. In general, gratuitous personal insults and disrupting discussions should be discouraged. Inveterate trolls may have to be sanctioned.

4. Off-Topic.

I am certainly not inclined to be harsh here, as it is very easy for discussions to wander and profitable discussions can emerge. But blatant disruptions should be discouraged.

- Finally, when it comes to insulting or harsh comments about religions, I am inclined to say that anything goes (as long as it isn't blatant trolling, like starting threads simply to insult religions or religious figures). Otherwise we have to say you can't harshly criticism Mormonism or Scientology, alongside Catholicism or Judaism or Islam (which I'm loathed to do), or we'd have to come up with some complex criteria to determine which religions are worthy of some respect and which aren't.
 

I'm inclined to provide a set of core refutations of scientism / naturalism a la what Feser has already done to which we refer all new critics of religion. Anyone who criticizes religion on scientistic grounds without having taken those refutations into account should be removed. I don't want someone like Santi coming in here and crapping all over the place because 'the fact that we have computers and Google and went to the moon' or some such means theism is false.

This would mean that I'm for accepting either only non-scientistic posters or else only scientistic posters conversant with us.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

We may be getting ahead ourselves, but I certainly see merit in stopping repititive scientistic attacks on religion, or related annoyances. It would certainly be a shame if internet naturalists kept weighing in with New Atheist style attacks on religion when serious discussions of philosophy of religion were going on.

Honestly, I think "scientism" is too poorly defined to warrant its own post-deletion category.* If such people are causing the types of problems you list, they will almost certainly fall into your other categories.

*We ought to either ban all naturalists (which I think would be a mistake, some are reasonable), or let the other categories do the work.

Last edited by John West (6/27/2015 9:20 pm)

I think the form of 'Scientism' we're talking about here is really just a crude warmed over Positivism, at least when taken to its logical conclusions. I doubt anyone who comes on here flying that flag is going to go very long with-out breaking of the non-trolling rules anyway. Of course if someone actually wanted to defend the Verificationist Criterion as a serious philosophical principle they’ll be free to do so without any fear of censure – something tells me such individuals might be rather rare.
 
So that ties in with the Politeness, Informed/Honest Criticism etiquette guidelines.

EDIT: I'm still keen on the idea into splitting the Philosophy section into a rough three-fold General Metaphysics/Ontology, Natural Theology/Philosophy of Religion and Non-Western Philosophies (Ethics can be merged with Politics).
 

Last edited by DanielCC (6/28/2015 6:30 am)

sam regarf wrote:

Can there be a subsection on this forum for beginners? A place to ask very basic questions on general Thomism and basic metaphysical concepts?

That might be a good idea. It could let people new to Thomism know they don't have to hesitate about asking questions. In any case, Sam, feel free to post any question you want in the "Philosophy" forum.

I've seen this form of post before, so it does happen. Another option might be to sticky a post called "Beginner's Questions" at the top of the philosophy forum, so that people with questions can easily reference old answers.

Last edited by John West (6/28/2015 10:50 am)