Our members are not very eager to move over. Are they hybernating or what?

Here's a question about the orientation of the forum: Are debates discouraged? Or are they something like tolerated up to a point but not encouraged?

Because I see an inconsistency on the part of mods/admins here. In netiquette terms, locking down a debate thread is either admission of defeat or indication that debate (of that sort) is not tolerated. Or both. This has happened to two of the threads where I was involved.

As far as I can gather, there was just one reprehensible sort of debate we ever had on this forum, involving an unfortunate uninformed dude who suffered collective attack from us all (and who eventually got banned, IIRC), but his thread remained open.

So which way is it? Or are you undecided on this point?

If the answer is that debates are allowed, but you do not want to see them under the main Philosophy and Religion forums, then a reasonable way to proceed is to create an additional Debates forum. The procedure would be as follows:

If anybody feels sufficiently partial about a controversial or debatable point, start a thread under Debates. Occasionally, a thread elsewhere might get out of hand, which is when the challenging participant would/should repeat his points to continue the dispute under Debates. Or an admin would split the thread and move the part containing the debate under Debates where the debate can continue.

There can be additional rules to make debates more formal, e.g. each participant *must* submit a post per day/week, no more, no less, in a certain form with a min/max length, and the whole debate would end in a specified number of days/weeks with a post by the respondent (not the challenger). Rules like this make debates less scary and more objectively moderatable.

However, if the orientation of this forum is to discourage debates - this orientation is implied by the locked threads I have experienced - then this frankly is discouraging to myself. I fully understand that there are tender-hearted people who do not want to see "people fighting". This is precisely why I suggested a separate formalised section for debates, because - please understand dear tender-hearted people - there are other people who are able to resolve even the toughest of disagreements. It is a procedure of resolving disagreements, not purposeless violence.

--------------------
The basic formula is: the narrower the topic, the more reasonable the administration must be. To include more members, the administration must be more inclusive, which becomes more imperative as the topic gets narrower. The topic of this forum, while close to my heart, might be too narrow to attract sufficient membership.

For now there is an even more basic question: Are the current members techie enough to pull off migration to the new forum? The administration commendably was able to do it.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I drifted into low-tolerance moderation of ranting, trolling, and rank sophistry, for better or worse. I think moderation will be less severe in the new forum, so you don't need to worry.

This is the sort of answer that does not respond to the concern.

What you call "ranting, trolling, and rank sophistry" is undefined and inconsistent with your actions. The last thread in question was closed by you referring to "You literally don't make anything even pretending to be a response to my points..." whereas in fact the post immediately above it was a point by point response, without deviating the discussion by introducing terms or facts that had not already been introduced. It is there for everybody to see.

So:
- You did not refer to ranting, trolling, and rank sophistry when closing the thread.
- You closed the thread referring to my failure to respond to your points, whereas the very nature of my immediately preceding post was a point by point response.

My question remains: Will there be an explicit rule-based policy with regard to debates or not? The current moderator deliberation is way too haphazard. And, of course, the problem is exacerbated when a moderator is debate participant.

Do you have anything to object to the few rules I proposed as a start? Anything unreasonable about them? If not, then let's work for a little space for my kind of "ranting, trolling, and rank sophistry" because it is actually ordinary internet behaviour, the kind of behaviour that internet forums are for, one of the reasons why some people join. Or do you have a personal gripe?

Last edited by seigneur (1/04/2019 7:00 am)

I realize that a lot of people are coming from pop apologetics where the aim is often to “win” debates by swaying hearts (and, ultimately, votes). The goal of the philosophical conversation, however, isn't to “win”. It's to help each other towards truth. (I actually take this a bit further: if I know that someone's aim is victory rather than truth, I take this as some prima facie reason to distrust their words. After all, as Nietzsche might ask, why think being honest or truthful is always the best way to “win” a debate?)

But this sometimes leads to hurt feelings. As Plato might say, we seek truth with friends but we must love truth more than those friends. I expect and encourage severe criticism of each other's views and arguments. So yes, with the above corrective in place, there is a sense in which debate is not only allowed but demanded.

(I'm still, however, going to take your advice and try to come up with tags for threads for people who are looking for advice or community support, and want to be able to post without being bathed in fire.)

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

John West wrote:

I realize that a lot of people are coming from pop apologetics where the aim is often to “win” debates by swaying hearts (and, ultimately, votes).

That seems like a voluntarist effort rather than an intellectualist effort, doesn't it? After all, why bother to strive toward the truth if the only thing that matters is what your heart says is right? Winning hearts and votes seems like a voluntarist tactic. An intellectualist would do as you are doing, which is to succor others toward finding the truth.

You're probably right that intellectualists tend to heavily favour rational appeals, but it's still possible for their goal to be persuasion rather than truth. But when they're aiming at persuasion rather than truth, they're simply not philosophizing. They're doing rhetoric. (Think of it in terms of intentionality and what makes for an act of philosophizing in the first place.)

John West wrote:

I realize that a lot of people are coming from pop apologetics where the aim is often to “win” debates by swaying hearts (and, ultimately, votes). The goal of the philosophical conversation, however, isn't to “win”. It's to help each other towards truth.

If this is so, then we have compatible goals. My background is not apologetics, but online debates with the aim of seeing how much my world view (and that of others) is defensible. It's not to win debates, but to have debates for self-reflection and to hopefully provide others also with opportunities to self-reflect. 

My complaint is not that Jeremy wins or that I lose debates. My complaint is that he shuts down debates - *for obviously false reasons* no less! I have no complaint against him as a discussion partner or debate opponent, but I have very serious concerns about him as a mod/admin.

John West wrote:

But this sometimes leads to hurt feelings.

Are you saying that Jeremy got his feelings hurt? Well, many truths indeed require a thick skin. Also, being a mod/admin requires a thick skin. And if those of thick skin are precious few, then all the more reason to devise rules for debates and maybe a separate forum section, so that everybody involved, both the participants and the moderator would be explicitly accountable to the rules, so that, if we do not yet have a thick skin, we could cautiously grow it. Because it is needed.

John West wrote:

The staff has unanimously ruled in favour of my light-handed, laissez faire approach going forward (though, to be clear, that doesn't mean we're not going to enforce the rules at all). Thanks for your concern.

Thanks that you had a ruling at all. However, if laissez faire means as-is, then it is obviously not good enough and the issue will come up again sooner than you think. Because as-is means, on the part of the mods, "do as thou wilt" and, for members it means a right to complain without any guarantees, recourse, or reference to the rules.