Personal attack explained

[henry quirk]

pffftt!

Then, I'm done with you.

[Felasco]

Hi Lucifer,

That is an interesting take on it. I don't agree with you entirely, and I don't think it's feasible to pre-moderate all posts on a busy Internet forum, but perhaps it could be an idea for a slower sub-forum.

Do you have a busy forum?

It's feasible to pre-moderate all posts on any forum where the mods are actually reading the posts on the forum. It's a matter of reading the posts before they are published instead of after, no extra time involved. If the mods aren't reading the posts, then the decision has already been made to embrace crap, and thus pre-mod wouldn't make sense.

If a forum owner does set a quality standard and pre-moderate, the outcome will be a higher quality forum with fewer active members.

A fair number of users will become some level of hysterical about their every utterance not being published immediately, and you'll lose them. These are probably mostly the folks you need to lose, but anyway... If the goal is to have the greatest number of members no matter what, then pre-mod is a bad idea.

It boils down to a quantity vs. quality decision. If you go for quantity, you'll be like ever other forum on the net. If you choose quality instead, you'll have at least a shot at becoming something special.

If you want to be ordinary, think of every possible problem that might arise by changing the standard publishing model, and embrace the list of problems with a satisfied contentment.

If you want to be special, you'll have no choice but to do something substantially different than what others are doing, and whatever different thing you choose, lots of folks will tell you it's wrong, Wrong, WRONG because it's not what they're used to.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The overwhelming vast majority of forums are built upon the "almost anybody can join and say almost anything" model. This publishing model explains why the entire forumosphere, including this forum, have been going steadily downhill for years now, to the point where even most forum owners rarely participate on their own forums.

If you want a forum that isn't just a repetitive clone of a thousand other failing forums, you'll need to escape this publishing model. The way to do that is to think of your forum as if it were the Letters To The Editor section of your local paper. Anybody can submit an article, but only the best ones get published.

All incoming posts go to you first before being published. You review the post and if it meets your standards, the post gets published. Thus, no personal attacks, as defined by you, ever see the light of day on your forum, thus the counter attacks never appear either. The rug is pulled out from under the entire personal attack cycle.

You'll no longer have any need to discipline your members, threaten them with punishment, issue warnings and demands and so on. Members will soon learn what is acceptable and what isn't. Those who share your editing philosophy will stay, and those who don't will leave, making your job as editor easier and easier over time.

Such a forum will surely be smaller than an "almost anything goes" forum, but it will have a feature very rare in today's forum world, you'll have a forum actually worth reading.

If you instead stick with the standard "almost anything goes" model, you'll face the fate of most forums, you'll fight a losing battle with Facebook, Twitter and other such sites, which were designed from the ground up for the "almost anything goes" experience, are extremely well funded, and have far more members than you can ever hope for.

Speaking only for myself, I've observed that I start wandering in to the personal attack realm when I get bored and frustrated with the level of conversation.

I would propose to you that the main problem on forums is not the spam and personal attacks everybody is so worried about, but rather the tidal wave of crap content. When members see a forum filled with crap, they stop respecting the forum, and each other.

Whatever you do, good luck!

Censorship, dictatorship, anti freedom, elitist, egocentric, megalomaniacal, selfish, short sighted, unwise, limited knowledge flow, something worthwhile may never be seen. Understanding is contained not only in what is desired, but what is undesired. It only requires intellect to explore either. Everything that is wrong with society is exclusion, which is not to say that guidance is not the rule of the day, but one first has to know of the deficiency, doesn't one. Yours is a pale and dismal world, of intolerance, of whatever some have been unfortunately exposed. One is not better than anyone else, only possibly, better informed. But then as Socrates said: 'I only know that I know nothing,' which seems to be lost on a great many people.

I'd say that Rick and those like him are the wisest of the bunch, as it's far better and easier, to trust in others for the most part, and only moderate when one gets way out of hand, in being directly threatening. People squabble, far better it be in a forum of partial anonymity, entrusted to the site admins, or a gym full of punching bags and the like, than in real life. Everyone needs to vent some steam in this highly competitive, stressful, mechanized world, of ever increasing numbers and complexity. Your resolve only ensures more complications

[tillingborn]

Censorship, dictatorship, anti freedom, elitist, egocentric, megalomaniacal, etc, etc

Well that's one way of looking at it. On the other hand, I don't think we can insist that anybody who by setting up their own forum, thereby offering others the chance to express themselves, has to let anyone say whatever they want. This after all is philosophy forum, and while the rules are very gently applied, one of the criteria for posts is that they contain some philosophical content.

I have to say Lucifer, if you think anything I have said is a personal attack, you really need to consider whether you have the stomach for this.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Censorship, dictatorship, anti freedom, elitist, egocentric, megalomaniacal, etc, etc

Well that's one way of looking at it. On the other hand, I don't think we can insist that anybody who by setting up their own forum, thereby offering others the chance to express themselves, has to let anyone say whatever they want. This after all is philosophy forum, and while the rules are very gently applied, one of the criteria for posts is that they contain some philosophical content.
I was not insisting, TB, I was just making a point of consideration, though rather enthusiastically. Unless you feel my words so powerful as to grab someones hands, while they're configuring their server software. I think otherwise of course, although all those large letters in red might have done it. Does anyone now feel like a marionette?

As to philosophy, I see that it can be found, in anything, and thus everywhere.


I have to say Lucifer, if you think anything I have said is a personal attack, you really need to consider whether you have the stomach for this.

Are you saying that he's much like his forum users he's concerned about. Funny thing is I thought the very same thing, as to his moniker, as I read his initial message, that you did, though I thought of what it tends to say about it's user, most of the time. I think a more appropriate one would be marshmallow, not necessarily how it pertains to this user, but to those that use it, in the way that I've hinted at.

[Felasco]

Censorship, dictatorship, anti freedom, elitist, egocentric, megalomaniacal, selfish, short sighted, unwise, limited knowledge flow, something worthwhile may never be seen.

Which mediums must we apply your principle to? Should TV channels, books, magazines, newspapers, academic journals and leading web sites all publish any content anybody submits to them? Would you use these media if they did?

Why are you not demanding that Rick Lewis publish your post in his magazine? If he declines, wouldn't that be censorship, dictatorship, anti freedom, elitist, egocentric, megalomaniacal, selfish, short sighted, unwise, limited knowledge flow, etc? Why is it perfectly ok for Rick to edit his mag, but not his forum?

If you would, please hit reply to respond with more points that can be defeated as easily as your last one, because every time you do, it tends to illustrate my point.

[reasonvemotion]

Also, Like Henry, I would be interested in viewing the site to 'see for myself' what you are refering to, the members may not be as thin-skinned as you think.

Which Forum is it?

I don't know, just yesterday I had two members demand their accounts deleted over what seemed a trivial matter to me.

It seems to me you are indecisive and need the back up of someone like minded to give you the courage to "delete".

The problem here is, your fear that you may be left with zero contributors.

You are in a bind, because you lack courage and conviction and your timidity overwhelms you and you are left pandering to the

contributor's vanity.

[SpheresOfBalance]

For the ignorant:

fo·rum [fawr-uhm, fohr-uhm] noun, plural fo·rums, fo·ra [fawr-uh, fohr-uh]
1. the marketplace or public square of an ancient Roman city, the center of judicial and business affairs and a place of assembly for the people.
2. a court or tribunal: the forum of public opinion.
3. an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.
4. the Forum, the forum in the ancient city of Rome.


pub·lish [puhb-lish] verb (used with object)
1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.
2. to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner.
3. to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.
4. to make publicly or generally known.
5. Law. to communicate (a defamatory statement) to some person or persons other than the person defamed.
verb (used without object)
6. to issue newspapers, books, computer software, etc.; engage in publishing: The new house will start to publish next month.
7. to have one's work published: She has decided to publish with another house.


pub·lic [puhb-lik] adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole: public funds; a public nuisance.
2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: public prosecution.
3. open to all persons: a public meeting.
4. of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, especially as a government officer: a public official.
5. maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road.
6. generally known: The fact became public.
7. familiar to the public; prominent: public figures.
8. open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public: a public dispute.
9. pertaining or devoted to the welfare or well-being of the community: public spirit.
10. of or pertaining to all humankind; universal.

[Felasco]

By the reasoning of the post above, we should welcome Mrs. Johnson's third grade class to use this forum to discuss the philosophy of crayons.

And hey, this is a forum, and I'm a member of the public, and I wanna publish.

So here's a photo of a duck, because after viewing this forum, I've learned that photos are a very important part of philosophy.

[Felasco]

Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de.

Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de.

Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de.

[Felasco]

In regards to my last post, I meant to also be sure to say WADAWADAWADAWADAWADAWADAWADAWADAWADAWADA because that is key to my philosophy of ducks eating crayons.

Also, guys, don't forget to put the seat down after you pee.

[SpheresOfBalance]

By the reasoning of the post above, we should welcome Mrs. Johnson's third grade class to use this forum to discuss the philosophy of crayons.

And hey, this is a forum, and I'm a member of the public, and I wanna publish.

So here's a photo of a duck, because after viewing this forum, I've learned that photos are a very important part of philosophy.

So how do you think this particular photo speaks of philosophy. I'm thinking maybe you're being sarcastic, and the photo means nothing to you other than acting out because you feel threatened. So the philosophy of mind then? Shall we start with yours or mine?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de.

Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de.

Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de. Jibba wa doodah, ipso funkum diddo fa! Inga frooda wiggon da zipzie do, winda bo zoota fingpa de.

And your age is? I'll not play this childish game.

YOU WIN, YOU DA MAN! I STAND CORRECTED. WHERE WOULD WE BE WITHOUT YOUR GRAND WISDOM!

I'm done, son!

[Felasco]

So how do you think this particular photo speaks of philosophy.

The photo speaks to the ultimate duckness of all philosophy, because as Hegel once famously said, "Uh oh, I think I'm gonna fart."

I'm thinking maybe you're being sarcastic,

Ya think?

and the photo means nothing to you other than acting out because you feel threatened.

I'm not threatened by you, I'm bored by you, and am racing you to the bottom. I think I'm winning!

So the philosophy of mind then? Shall we start with yours or mine?

Ah yes, let's mine the mindful mine of mindingness, and reveal the ultimate crayon for what it really is, an illusion created by the perspective of nothingness as it unfolds across centuries of didactic articulation in regards to abstractions as yet unrevealed. I'm with you on that! Hoo boy, now this is exciting!

[SpheresOfBalance]

So how do you think this particular photo speaks of philosophy.

The photo speaks to the ultimate duckness of all philosophy, because as Hegel once famously said, "Uh oh, I think I'm gonna fart."

I'm thinking maybe you're being sarcastic,

Ya think?

and the photo means nothing to you other than acting out because you feel threatened.

I'm not threatened by you, I'm bored by you, and am racing you to the bottom. I think I'm winning!

So the philosophy of mind then? Shall we start with yours or mine?

Ah yes, let's mine the mindful mine of mindingness, and reveal the ultimate crayon for what it really is, an illusion created by the perspective of nothingness as it unfolds across centuries of didactic articulation in regards to abstractions as yet unrevealed. I'm with you on that! Hoo boy, now this is exciting!