AI or whatever to boost forums…

[Ansiktsburk]

I’ve been a bit pissed with forums since 1986 - the interesting threads that brings attention.

Like now… you’re away for a couple of weeks, log in, see some new interesting topics and go to the last post. Only to see like 4 page of two combattants building a drone view pyramid of p*nis measurement. Not least common in armchair Philosophy forums. One would really like to take part in whatever aspect of the question that one find interesting. But any such earlier post are buried 15 pages back. Probably unfixable but who knows.

[Age]

I’ve been a bit pissed with forums since 1986 - the interesting threads that brings attention.

Like now… you’re away for a couple of weeks, log in, see some new interesting topics and go to the last post. Only to see like 4 page of two combattants building a drone view pyramid of p*nis measurement. Not least common in armchair Philosophy forums. One would really like to take part in whatever aspect of the question that one find interesting. But any such earlier post are buried 15 pages back. Probably unfixable but who knows.

Have you brought any thing of any real interest to philosophy forums?

Have you gone into a thread to have what I call a real 'philosophical discussion', that is, gone in Truly open and curios to find, and arrive, at a conclusion through logical reasoning, only, and from a Truly peaceful perspective, as well?

Or, like all of the other posters, here, do you also much prefer to just fight/argue for your own assumptions or beliefs, and/or fight/argue against other's assumptions or beliefs, only?

[Ansiktsburk]

I’ve been a bit pissed with forums since 1986 - the interesting threads that brings attention.

Like now… you’re away for a couple of weeks, log in, see some new interesting topics and go to the last post. Only to see like 4 page of two combattants building a drone view pyramid of p*nis measurement. Not least common in armchair Philosophy forums. One would really like to take part in whatever aspect of the question that one find interesting. But any such earlier post are buried 15 pages back. Probably unfixable but who knows.

Have you brought any thing of any real interest to philosophy forums?

Have you gone into a thread to have what I call a real 'philosophical discussion', that is, gone in Truly open and curios to find, and arrive, at a conclusion through logical reasoning, only, and from a Truly peaceful perspective, as well?

Or, like all of the other posters, here, do you also much prefer to just fight/argue for your own assumptions or beliefs, and/or fight/argue against other's assumptions or beliefs, only?

My OP was pretty much like techical, how the forum medium could be tweaked into something more fruitful for posters and readers.

I can relate your post to that - and answer ”no” to both your questions. I could definitely have contributed more, but the format make me hesistant to post, since it is hard to find posts within long threads frutiful for responding.

Logical reasoning has its merits and I have seen in your posts that you do indeed practice that. But a conclusion in most academical papers will include a bottom-up as well as a top-down line of reasoning. It is very hard to totally break down a problem into pieces possible to prove with logical reasoning and by that arriving at a ”verdict” on the higher level. Should or should not I do this or that? On can argue that Philosophy ought not to do those upper decisions and rather stick to what’s logically provable, much in line with lets say the Analytical tradition. But well, like Kierkegaard says, life will present you with choices. And those choices, on a personal and collective level, witt force you to integrate knowledge ”upwards”

And the second ”no” - I don’t give shite as to what people think about my debating talents, I want to understand stuff.

And well, do you find the ”Forum” format adequate as a many-to-many way of communication? There have been initiatives, like ”reddit” with its upping and downing. But I think the format could be better.

[Flannel Jesus]

My OP was pretty much like techical, how the forum medium could be tweaked into something more fruitful for posters and readers.

There's wasn't a single technical detail or actionable piece of advice in your op towards how to make a forum more fruitful for posters and readers. Your op was just complaints.

[FlashDangerpants]

My OP was pretty much like techical, how the forum medium could be tweaked into something more fruitful for posters and readers.

There's wasn't a single technical detail or actionable piece of advice in your op towards how to make a forum more fruitful for posters and readers. Your op was just complaints.

He got as far as problem statement in the OP, just not as far as recommendations.

Problems identified:
- All the attention tends to go to the handful of most active discussions, irrespective of their quality
- Most of the discussions descend into insult
- Click
- Randomly mentioning AI in the title is probably the best way to get attention so that your thread can become the one with the attention where everybody calls everyone names.

[Ansiktsburk]

My OP was pretty much like techical, how the forum medium could be tweaked into something more fruitful for posters and readers.

There's wasn't a single technical detail or actionable piece of advice in your op towards how to make a forum more fruitful for posters and readers. Your op was just complaints.

I aint an expert on forums, was kinda looking for hints from people who knows whats technically feasible. AI could maybe do a summary, give links to discussions within the discussion, and hide such subdiscussion if wanted by the reader. Remove stuff made by bots I don’t know whats possible. Or wanted by a wider group of forum users.

[FlashDangerpants]

It it's possible to add a bot that enforces accurate use of certain terms such as "ad hominem" which is routinely misunderstood for tactical reasons by some internet philosophers, that would be nice.

[phyllo]

I’ve been a bit pissed with forums since 1986 - the interesting threads that brings attention.

Like now… you’re away for a couple of weeks, log in, see some new interesting topics and go to the last post. Only to see like 4 page of two combattants building a drone view pyramid of p*nis measurement. Not least common in armchair Philosophy forums. One would really like to take part in whatever aspect of the question that one find interesting. But any such earlier post are buried 15 pages back. Probably unfixable but who knows.

Moderators have to keep the discussions on topic. Warn and dish out consequences to posters who are insulting and abusive.

But it's a thankless job that nobody wants to do and nobody wants to remunerate.

[Age]

I’ve been a bit pissed with forums since 1986 - the interesting threads that brings attention.

Like now… you’re away for a couple of weeks, log in, see some new interesting topics and go to the last post. Only to see like 4 page of two combattants building a drone view pyramid of p*nis measurement. Not least common in armchair Philosophy forums. One would really like to take part in whatever aspect of the question that one find interesting. But any such earlier post are buried 15 pages back. Probably unfixable but who knows.

Have you brought any thing of any real interest to philosophy forums?

Have you gone into a thread to have what I call a real 'philosophical discussion', that is, gone in Truly open and curios to find, and arrive, at a conclusion through logical reasoning, only, and from a Truly peaceful perspective, as well?

Or, like all of the other posters, here, do you also much prefer to just fight/argue for your own assumptions or beliefs, and/or fight/argue against other's assumptions or beliefs, only?

My OP was pretty much like techical, how the forum medium could be tweaked into something more fruitful for posters and readers.

I can relate your post to that - and answer ”no” to both your questions. I could definitely have contributed more, but the format make me hesistant to post, since it is hard to find posts within long threads frutiful for responding.

Logical reasoning has its merits and I have seen in your posts that you do indeed practice that. But a conclusion in most academical papers will include a bottom-up as well as a top-down line of reasoning.

The very last place I would go to find conclusions/answers to what I call the 'meaningful questions', in Life, would be in 'academic papers'.

It is very hard to totally break down a problem into pieces possible to prove with logical reasoning and by that arriving at a ”verdict” on the higher level.

I will disagree, absolutely, with 'this', here.

To me, people like to say or claim that 'there is a problem', like for example, 'The drug problem', 'The problem of nature versus nurture, creation versus evolution', 'The starvation problem'. But, to me, and how the word 'problem' is defined, until any so-called 'problem' is broken down into a question posed for a solution, then it is not just very hard but impossible to arrive at a 'verdict' or 'conclusion' through any means, including 'logical reasoning', on any level, and thus especially so on the higher level.

Should or should not I do this or that?

That would all depend on what 'this' or 'that' is referring to, exactly.

On can argue that Philosophy ought not to do those upper decisions and rather stick to what’s logically provable, much in line with lets say the Analytical tradition.

One can argue 'over' or 'about' absolutely any thing, but only when what is just, True, Right, Accurate, Correct, provable, and irrefutable can one then form a 'sound and valid argument'. And, it is through 'logical reasoning', and 'peaceful discussions', with others, when and how 'sound and valid arguments' are formed the best, that is, in the quickest, simplest, and easiest way.

And, let 'us' not that when a 'sound and valid argument' is formed, and shared, then there is no one who could refute it.

But well, like Kierkegaard says, life will present you with choices. And those choices, on a personal and collective level, witt force you to integrate knowledge ”upwards”

And the second ”no” - I don’t give shite as to what people think about my debating talents, I want to understand stuff.

And well, do you find the ”Forum” format adequate as a many-to-many way of communication?

To me, the 'format' is fine. But, sadly, through a Wrong 'education system' adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, have just not yet learned how to behave properly, and Correctly, here.

'Debating' has been taught, but unfortunately 'debating' is a huge and a leading cause of the Wrong way of 'looking at' and 'seeing' things, in Life. Which, in turn, has led to division, conflict, and resentment.

If absolutely is 'proud' of their so-called 'debating talents', then they need to have a good hard 'look at' "themselves".

Now, if absolutely any one, really, does want to understand 'stuff', then all they need to do is just because Truly curios and Truly open, once more. And, if absolutely any one, really, does want to understand, "them" 'self', and thus human beings, "themselves", then one just needs to be Truly Honest, first, and then become Truly Open while seriously Wanting to change, for the better.

There have been initiatives, like ”reddit” with its upping and downing. But I think the format could be better.

Okay. So, what, exactly, are your suggestions for 'changing the format', here?

[Age]

My OP was pretty much like techical, how the forum medium could be tweaked into something more fruitful for posters and readers.

There's wasn't a single technical detail or actionable piece of advice in your op towards how to make a forum more fruitful for posters and readers. Your op was just complaints.

I aint an expert on forums, was kinda looking for hints from people who knows whats technically feasible. AI could maybe do a summary, give links to discussions within the discussion, and hide such subdiscussion if wanted by the reader. Remove stuff made by bots I don’t know whats possible. Or wanted by a wider group of forum users.

If you wanted 'hints', then best way to 'fix' 'philosophy forums' and/or 'philosophical discussions' is by people just becoming more Curios, more Honest, more Open, and more Wanting to learn and understand, instead of continually wanting to prove their views and/or beliefs true and right.

[Age]

It it's possible to add a bot that enforces accurate use of certain terms such as "ad hominem" which is routinely misunderstood for tactical reasons by some internet philosophers, that would be nice.

Here, 'we' have yet another example of one who believes that its 'own terms and definitions' are the only true and right ones.

[Age]

I’ve been a bit pissed with forums since 1986 - the interesting threads that brings attention.

Like now… you’re away for a couple of weeks, log in, see some new interesting topics and go to the last post. Only to see like 4 page of two combattants building a drone view pyramid of p*nis measurement. Not least common in armchair Philosophy forums. One would really like to take part in whatever aspect of the question that one find interesting. But any such earlier post are buried 15 pages back. Probably unfixable but who knows.

Moderators have to keep the discussions on topic. Warn and dish out consequences to posters who are insulting and abusive.

Why do 'they' 'have to'?

But it's a thankless job that nobody wants to do and nobody wants to remunerate.

[Walker]

I’ve been a bit pissed with forums since 1986 - the interesting threads that brings attention.

Like now… you’re away for a couple of weeks, log in, see some new interesting topics and go to the last post. Only to see like 4 page of two combattants building a drone view pyramid of p*nis measurement. Not least common in armchair Philosophy forums. One would really like to take part in whatever aspect of the question that one find interesting. But any such earlier post are buried 15 pages back. Probably unfixable but who knows.

Just unearth the aspect you find interesting, quote it with a comment, and if no one else wants to discuss it, no harm done. Some folks even begin a new thread with the quote and the comment.

[phyllo]

Moderators have to keep the discussions on topic. Warn and dish out consequences to posters who are insulting and abusive.

Why do 'they' 'have to'?

I stand corrected.

If you don't mind threads going off topic, endless bickering and abusive language, then nothing has to be done.

[Flannel Jesus]

My OP was pretty much like techical, how the forum medium could be tweaked into something more fruitful for posters and readers.

There's wasn't a single technical detail or actionable piece of advice in your op towards how to make a forum more fruitful for posters and readers. Your op was just complaints.

I aint an expert on forums, was kinda looking for hints from people who knows whats technically feasible. AI could maybe do a summary, give links to discussions within the discussion, and hide such subdiscussion if wanted by the reader. Remove stuff made by bots I don’t know whats possible. Or wanted by a wider group of forum users.

Ok, but you said it was "pretty much like technical" and that's obviously not the case