In the interests of transparency, and to keep any poll-related queries or concerns from staining the flow of other threads, I thought it apt to create the appropriate space. Submit your comments/debate here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ Edited addition [2.52pm, 9 April 2009]:
For a summary of rules proposed and drawn from this discussion, please see: https://www.researchgate.net/group/Philosophy/board/t1854/1780
____________________________________________
~ Edited addition: [8:04pm, 15 May 2009]:
This thread now serves as reference for the purpose of following discourse on issues of moderation and related polls. The end result of such deliberation: Rules are NOT implemented and neither is moderation. But the value of the process has been absorbed by users and readers and benefits the quality of future interactions as lessons well-learnt. :-).
_____________________________________________
Personal note: Well done one and all...for the destruction of one Society, the establishment of another and then the realisation and choice that NONE is necessary!
Regards: Natasha
Dear Sid
I have moved your group message to this thread from the RG personal message system to members.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group message from Apr 4, 2009 1:12 am written by Sidney Clouston.
Subject: A Note about a Vote.
Dear Fellows and Friends:
A member suggests rules and wants to shape this group to his ideals and perhaps several others. I
am suggesting that we first vote to require an at least simple majority to be needed to pass the
proposed items which are not very clear at least to me. There are 108 listed members so a simple
majority would be 55 votes for or against. It is not clear to me if the proposer would need to
contract a certified accounting firm or if we will be sent a white and black stone to cast our vote.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Have a blessed day.
Best regards,
Sidney Clouston
_______________________________________________________________________________
so, why is nobody getting into the nitty-gritty of the vote?
what happens with people abstaining? what do their votes count as? or has this been answered somewhere above?
sid came up with a clear proposal, 55 votes for. do you agree? i don't, until the status of non-votes is cleared up. what do you think? or maybe we can reverse it and make it 54 votes against?
sounds good, that's where my democracy experiments failed at the phil society at bristol, because of lack of enthusiasm. but true, the first thing to do if we were to do any sort of poll would be the reflexive move, ie a poll about polls, and of course to determine whether the idea is even a starter or not. so yeah, of course i'm in!!
then we can move onto 'what do you want from the phil group?'
the topic author maybe? or anyone who flags it up? (we could make a threat named 'rules and discussion of rules with two subthreads, one with the agreed rules that we could call 'the constitution' and one where cases can be debated -the court-)
what do you think?
I've kept out of this as much as possible over the last few days, but perhaps a few remarks are called for.
1. I agree that the topic instigator should be responsible for moderation of her/his topic. I take it that anyone launching a topic will be 'interested enough' to provide this necessary service, if she/he isn't, it's her/his problem if the topic goes off subject, is inundated by floods of irrelevant or sporked info etc.
2. We can OF COURSE quote for research purposes. But sporking a definition is not an argument, nor should it be mistaken for one. If Joe Bloggs quotes, he should exploit his quotation (showing how the quote supports his arguments or arguing against it, drawing out the lines he wants to follow etc.)
3. I don't know about anyone else, but I've so far found RG rather frustrating & disappointing. OK, so I’ve been led to do a lot of work in epistemology that I wouldn’t otherwise have done, which is enriching, but apart from the stalled discussion with Roberto, there’s been little possibility of any serious exchange on the metaphysical problems central to my “research”. My resistance to what I would qualify as pseudophilosophy is largely motivated by my frustration : on seeing the sub-sophomoric quality of much of what’s posted, any serious researcher would run a mile. We should tell the tinfoil-hat-and-orgone-accumulator crowd POLITELY BUT FIRMLY that our understanding of ‘metaphysics’ has nothing to do with the books on crystal gazing and tarot one finds in a New Age Bookshop, and that they’d do better to peddle their wares on some other kind of site. RG IS FOR RESEARCHERS, not for yer Uncle Joe who’s got a bee in his bonnet about QM and ley-lines…
4. I’m afraid I was responsible for the “religion and science” debate (I considered it to be important, given the then-actual question of the LHC and the ongoing battle between creationists and evolutionists). I had hoped that we’d have input from SERIOUS believers (folks like Dr Liccione) with a very good basis in theology; I now realise that it was an invitation to polemic. Indeed, all this nastiness started when I stated, in a spirit of openness, that I was a (inactive) Bright; although I continued by criticising the unphilosophical position of folks like Dawkins, the damage had been done. I should, perhaps, have remembered that there are still benighted countries where a non-religious POV is considered to be some kind of mental aberration…
As with any fledgling discussion group, time is necessary to 'sort' through the 'noise'. It's inescapable. The consequences of multi-discipline, multi-qualified and multi-personality debate enable us to detect inconsistencies and inadequacies in not just theories, but *knowledge*.
It allows us to trace these back to fundamental assumptions and conventions adopted [un/intentionally] at the start. Seeing as though we deal with knowledge here, we are justified in using methods to help us avoid the same contradictions if we want to continue adding value. My frustrations have certainly been with interruptions to conversation flow, irrelevant interjections, and confusion over relative systems. And even all of THAT is rather normal in an international sense.
I do however consider the 'definitive statement' here to hold huge value. By this I mean that we should agree that any statement introduced as definition should be testable and up for criticism.
Another very important point: we have numeorus contributors and non-contributors who are not avid followers of Philo as a discipline but may share the passion and our introduction of rules must not be too rigid in that we automatically exclude educational value [and entertainment value] for such a group of observers.
Dennis - thank you for your intelligent reply; my frustratoin was rather directed at our own problems as a subgroup, and was not meant to reflect on RG policy in general.
As to the rest of you (ATTEN-SHUN!!!) What if we were to get back to a bit of work and - shall we say -discount interruptions (I've posted my view elsewhere, make of it what you will)? Natasha picked up on my musing over the idea that a great deal of philosophy has its roots in the various senses of the verb "to be" - anyone up to a bt of titillating analysis (et ontologie si affinité)?
Hey, Tristan...I know that RG is probably your 623rd job in the list of works you are busy with, but how goes 'the Poll'??
For a summary of rules proposed and drawn from this discussion, please see: https://www.researchgate.net/group/Philosophy/board/t1854/1780
I agree with everything as long as everyone remembers two things
1. I'm the boss
2. You aren't
That's fine Dr Hirst - you're the Boss - and we're the decision-makers.
what? i don^t like the authoritarian overtones of the last 3 messages. I don^t like bosses in a philosophy forum. i demand a retraction and a full-blown apology.
I don't like liars, I don't like cheats. I don't like bullshitters, I don't like schmoozers, I don't like ass-lickers.
You're fired.
BTW, what the hell's a "schmoozer"? We didn't have them when I lived in England...
huh? i^m fired from what? and i don^t get the tone of the last messages? i^ve lost you all
The Apprentice - Alan Sugar... blimey, YOU'RE the one who lives in Blighty.
***
Anyway, the previous few posts were PARODIES. PARODY is a form of HUMOUR.
Sheesh, why are relativists so damn' po-faced? Perhaps it's because they have to take EVERYTHING seriously (even Holy Grail)
I apologise for that last message. Not even Derrida could have taken HG seriously.
so what do we do in light of the poll? i think one interesting conclusion is that we need to get more people engaged. or, to be blunt, kicked out
It seems that our need for rules [or I prefer 'guidelines'] of discourse is greater than our need for a Moderator. So, our first order of business would be to *agree* on the guidelines that need to be in place.
I would like to recommend we first simplify our input to date (there's too many points) and then agree on those guidelines as being in place. Secondly, we can agree that additional points [and moderators] can be added or removed [rather reviewed] as time moves on and lessons are learned. Thirdly, we can place the guidelines as a 'sticky thread' for ease of reference.
I don't like "rules". We just need a big stick.
[David is playing Stirner to Haris' Proudhon]
And the poll results should be interpreted in the light of the vast number of abstensions (= don't give a f**k about the "group")
i agree with the last comment-i think the most important thing to settle is engagement. this may have to be through provocative issues that may catch the eye-and maybe dropping the level of sophistication for a bit. who's stirner? big sticks are for baboons-we are humans, ie social animals, ie we need rules, not sticks
What's the difference between a "rule" and a "stick" in terms of teleology? Just being pragmatic: rule-following is for automata, not for people.
mm is there an implication that sticks are for people? be careful, you're edging very close to phallic symbolism. and i don't think that automata follow rules, since they don't really have a choice not to. unless i'm behind in the latest automata research
dear david, i like to think that we at least have the illusion of choice. never talked to an automaton so don't know if it shares that illusion.
dear tristan, i think the result that most members don't care overrides all the other results, so i wouldn't jump to the conclusions you've jumped to. i'd propose the following radical solutions. either start a new group formed by the people who voted with a sticky topic urging people to participate, or kick out all the members and see who comes back. i bet less than 20% of the members will realise they're not in the group anymore
Whoooaaahh!
Firstly, the poll was done in response to unsavoury/unprofessional dialogue and discourse and to ESTABLISH how members feel about implementing moderation/rules. Then it was necessary to establish what TYPE of members are active/inactive here.
That's ALL. We know what we know.
There may be all sorts of inferences we can make from the results, but then where do we draw the line? Let's just keep to the original intention and what is evident from the results. It's irrelevant whether 4 or 400 people agree for rules and not moderators. The point is, the majority agree on it. End of story.
If there's more info needed, then do another poll and some advertising, but examine what you want to achieve by that.
If you want to resolve any relationship issues, then send a personal invite to HG and SC and sort your own house out. But for the moment, I'd say this house is not perfect, but it works. It's not my responsibility to ensure any other members are active, but I AM responsible for the quality of my own activity. We need to ask ourselves why a large amount of inactive people is a concern and then act on it. But don't assign the intention of these polls/results to THAT outcome, as it's just not right.
Umm, if we have 90% abstension, can we talk about a "majority"? We should rather be talking about a quorum, or a percentage of *active* members...
As far as I'm concerned, the most important thing we can do is get on with some philosophy - God will recognise His own.
Crikey, sorry, David...you're right...'majority' is a bad word choice. Taken away in the moment there. Thank God it happens only twice in one year (and mostly after 10pm). Percentage of active members was meant to be my reference.
PS: I don't believe there's anyone who has really stopped any discussions because of this presentation, are there?
PPS: I agree Tristan, non-involvment is hugely as a result of outside influences of work and time pressures. I have certainly battled to apply due focus, at least consistently, as I have had to issue blessings on others :) Alas, my lack of life is due to the abundant lives of others...
~ Edited addition: [8:04pm, 15 May 2009]:
This thread now serves as reference for the purpose of following discourse on issues of moderation and related polls. The end result of such deliberation: Rules are NOT implemented and neither is moderation. But the value of the process has been absorbed by users and readers and benefits the quality of future interactions as lessons well-learnt. :-).
_____________________________________________
Personal note: Well done one and all...for the destruction of one Society, the establishment of another and then the realisation and choice that NONE is necessary!
Regards: Natasha
mm i love that summary, i actually love the historical narrative and i'm quite proud of it. and i'll try to vote for anarchists in the euro-elections, if there are any!
i'm so happy to be able to perform my right of vote, though it my vote will go in the pot of the big ugly-weather country rather than the small island. though given that less than 40% of eligible brits will vote anyway, it may not be such a waste after all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Bone
for some (technically) homegrown talent :)
(especially look at the Vote Nobody campaign)
mm kinky!
time for me to go play (with sandcastles, just in case you're thinking dirty). or should i finally decide to become an alpha male (or any male) in my 26 years of age? though i suppose an alpha male wouldn't agree for their own bottom to be smacked, anyway
mm whatever. i still can't get the innuenda out. ts ts. the hardships a person has to go through to attain purity.
But what could you have possibly done to lose it?? (innocent fluttering of eyelids)
Ok ok...I admit I broke my own rule (was it a rule? more a request i suppose).
Take the bottoms smacking of unpure pork scratchings to the Coffee shop...please.
mm ok will try to bear that in mind. heyy, i wasn't talking about inflatable sex dolls, i'm innocent remember? (plus who needs such things, there's the internet)
guys, do you think we should make the phil group finite, and delete all the very old discussions?
can you give a positive argument for them being there? i was mostly thinking that nobody would be using them
Try empirical observation, Haris: if you go and look, you'll SEE that they're there. That's as good an argument for their existence as you'll get...
Or where you using "an argument for them being there" in a non-metaphysical sense?
no no i wasn't asking for their existence, i was arguing that they're just clogging up the group and being of any use whatsoever to anybody, hence we should delete them and make the group slimmer and nicer.
mm good and thorough exposition, and some good arguments for keeping things. i wasn't aware that there could be value in such research as treating the contributions as text or of any other diachronic study on what we say. maybe that was based on the naive idea that i had that what we were doing was just simulating oral chat but in written form. anyway.
my idea was a radical spring-clean, in the sense of deleting the majority of old threads. this can still be done if a notice is given for people that they have a week or a month to take stuff away (copy-paste) from old discussions. after the time is past, then we just delete the whole lot. this is of course based on me not looking back to any old discussion, but then i suppose that's just me following a stupid methodology and not drawing on past resources. though i can ground that, by assuming that we do a sort of mental sorting, in the sense that everybody who has read the threads and thought about them has already done the hard work, and it is now stored in his head, so the physical presence of the threads is immaterial. i suppose though that my assumption is false.
Apologies for some abscence on my part. Welcome back Tristan!
My voice:
I agree with you Haris that information [the threads] is immaterial - but for different reasons. IF information is irrelevant, then we should be asking ourselves WHY we feel we need the change [clean-up]? We've attempted this twice before, or rather David has, (who has a good sense of information in any event) and it hasn't quite happened...why's this? Are we assuming the wrong things perhaps?
My viewpoint:
The fact we've absorbed information and are able to move on is fabulous, but who are we to decide it's time to burn down our library of Nineveh?? Keeping the information is imperative, it's not costing any space or time, even effort. The only frustration would be our 'sense' of its organisation (based on our own learning curves). Which leads me to agreeing with Tristan: categorisation or 'mapping' on content type, flow, concept, development, etc is needed.
My suggestion:
It's simple: As a 'Research community gateway', by definition, RG should have the facility to archive thread discussions as text documents on super-admin request. We just need to prove there's a need.
Failing which, if it's STILL important to us, we volunteer to 'take on' one thread each for a period of time and copy/paste the text [with dates/names] into an MSWord [or alternative] document for uploading to RG as reference documents. And this, BEFORE it gets TOO big!
Ciao for now
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy